Mobility Improvement Option Evaluation Technical Memo 8 Prepared by: HDR

On behalf of:

August 17, 2017 This page intentionally blank.

ii Mobility Improvement Option Evaluation CONTENTS 5. Lithia Pinecrest Road-Bryan Road...... 27 1. Introduction...... 1 5.1 Existing Conditions...... 27 2. Existing Conditions...... 2 5.2 Roundabout Configurations Considered...... 28

3. Lumsden Road...... 2 5.3 Traffic Operational Analysis...... 28 3.1 Existing Conditions...... 2 5.4 Roundabout Preliminary Layouts...... 32 3.2 Proposed Improvement...... 4 5.5 Other Treatment Options Considered...... 32 3.3 Right-of-Way Impacts...... 4 5.6 Summary of Findings...... 34 3.4 Environmental Screening...... 6 6. Lithia Pinecrest Road-Bryan Road 3.5 Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate...... 7 One-Way Pair at SR 60...... 35 3.6 Safety Impacts...... 7 6.1 One-Way Pair Configurations Considered...... 35 3.7 Summary of Findings...... 7 6.2 Traffic Operational Analysis...... 38

4. Bloomingdale Avenue...... 8 6.3 Special Considerations for Implementation...... 39. 4.1 Existing Conditions...... 8 6.4 Other Treatment Options Considered...... 39 4.2 Reversible Lane Overview...... 8 6.5 Summary of Findings...... 39 4.3 Reversible Lane Screening...... 8 7. Other Improvement Options...... 40 4.4 Special Considerations for Implementation...... 14 8. Sources...... 41 4.5 Reversible Lanes Configurations Considered...... 14

4.6 Other Treatment Options Considered...... 23 9. Attachments...... 41

4.7 Summary of Findings...... 26

iii This page intentionally blank.

iv Mobility Improvement Option Evaluation KATHLEEN GIBSONIA

LAKE CARROLLWOOD KNIGHTS MAGDALENE VILLAGE COMBEE THONOTOSASSA SETTLEMENT

CARROLLWOOD TEMPLE WINSTON CRYSTAL LAKELAND OLDSMAR TERRACE LAKE

EGYPT TOWN 'N' WEST LAKE PLANT EATON COUNTRY PARK DEL RIO CITY PARK

SAFETY SEFFNER 1. INTRODUCTION HARBOR Figure 1. Study Area Regional ContextKATHLEEN MapGIBSONIA DOVER MANGO KATHLEEN GIBSONIA The Brandon Corridors and Mixed-Use Centers Study is joint TAMPA 4 ORIENT HIGHLAND LAKE ¨¦§ MEDULLA CARROLLWOOD KNIGHTS PARK MAGDALENE CITY pilot project from the HillsboroughVILLAGE County Metropolitan Planning COMBEE THONOTOSASSA LAKELAND SETTLEMENT Organization (MPO) and the Hillsborough County City-County LAKE 275 HIGHLANDS CARROLLWOOD ¨¦§ KNIGHTS MAGDALENE CARROLLWOOD TEMPLE WINSTON CRYSTAL VALRICO VILLAGE LAKELAND COMBEE PlanningOLDSMAR Commission (Planning Commission). The purposeTERRACE of the THONOTOSASSA LAKE PALM SETTLEMENT study is to better coordinate the envisionedEGYPT land use pattern with RIVER TOWN 'N' CARROLLWOOD WEST LAKE PLANT TEMPLE EATON WINSTON CRYSTAL COUNTRY BRANDON LAKELAND planned transportation improvementsPARK along majorOLDD EScorridorsLM RAIOR within the CITY TERRACE PARK LAKE WILLOW SAFETY FEATHER SEFFNER EGYPT OAK TOWN 'N' DOVER HABrandonRBOR Study Area. As shown in Figure 1, the studyS areaOUND is located at WEST LAKE PLANT EATON COUNTRY PARK DEL RIO PARK a key location within eastern Hillsborough County. The study area isMA NaG O CITY TAMPA SAFETY 4 ORIENT SEFFNER HIGHLAND ¨¦§ MEDDUOLLVAER HARBOR PARK CITY MULBERRY three-mile by six-mile area located east of Interstate 75 (I-75) between LAKELAND ¨¦§275 MANGO HIGHLANDS State Road 60 (SR 60)/Brandon Boulevard and Bloomingdale Avenue. VALRICO TAMPA 4 ORIENT HIGHLAND GANDY ¨¦§ MEDULLA PALM PARK BLOOMINGDALE CITY The eastern limit of the study area is Dover Road/LittleRIVER Road. LAKELAND BRANDON ¨¦§275 WILLOW HIGHLANDS KEYSVILLE VALRICO 75 RIVERVIEW FEATHER OAK ¨¦§ PALM SOUND This memo documents the study team’s efforts to analyze several RIVER BRANDON GIBSONTON WILLOW MULBERRY transportation or mobility improvements within the FstudyEATHER area.A OAK SOUND GANDY high-level assessment of each option is provided, including the BLOOMINGDALE KEYSVILLE MULBERRY overall feasibility and analysis of potential impacts. The options¨¦§75 RIVERVIEW HILLSBOROUGH LEALMANGIBSONTONGANDY consideredfocus on improvements to roadway capacity and traffic BLOOMINGDALE KEYSVILLE operations for the study area’s major east-west corridors. Many of ¨¦§75 RIVERVIEW COUNTY HILLSBOROUGH GIBSONTON theLEAL MmobilityAN options have been previously proposed in the LRTP or BRADLEY COUNTY planning documents. The following improvements were considered: JUNCTION BRADLEY LEALMAN HILLSBOROUGH JUNCTION SAINT CAOPUONLLTOY SAINƒTƒ Widen Lumsden Road between Kings AvenueAPO LandLO Lithia Pinecrest PETERSBURG BEACH BRADLEY PETERSBURG BEACH Road. JUNCTION

SAINT APOLLO ƒƒ Convert median/center turn lane on BloomingdalePETERSBURG Avenue to a BEACH reversible lane during peak periods. RUSKIN SUN CITY ƒƒ Reconstruct Lithia Pinecrest Road/Bryan Road intersectionCENTER as WIMAUMA roundabout and/or one-way pairs. RUSKIN SUN CITY Brandon Study Area - Regional Brandon Study Area RUSKIN SUN CITY CENTER CENTER WIMAUMA WIMAUMA BraThendon nextCorrid ophasers & Mix eofd U sanalysise Centers P ilwillot Pr oincludeject the development of mobility Brandon Study Area - Regional Brandon Study Area improvement scenarios and traffic modeling to evaluate the 0 2.5 5 Brandon Study Area - Regional Brandon Study Area Miles ¯ performance of these improvements, along withBrando othern Corrid obicycle,rs & Mixed Use Centers Pilot Project 0 2.5 5 pedestrian, safety, north-south roadways, secondaryBrandon C roadwayorridors &network, Mixed Use Centers Pilot Project Miles ¯ and enhanced transit service improvements. 0 2.5 5 Miles ¯ 1 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 3. LUMSDEN ROAD The Brandon Study Area has a number of mobility challenges, Lumsden Road is a major east-east west arterial in the center of including significant capacity issues on the three east-west corridors the study area that provides access to the Selmon Expressway from (SR 60, Lumsden Road, and Bloomingdale Avenue), safety, bicycle and the central and eastern portions of the study area. The study team pedestrian connectivity, and a limited secondary roadway network. evaluated the feasibility of widening of Lumsden Road between Kings Avenue and Lithia Pinecrest Road (see Figure 2) from a four-lane Traffic volumes within the study area are high, and residential divided roadway with a center landscaped median and turn lanes to a developments to the south and southeast of the study area place six-lane divided roadway with bicycle lanes and sidewalks. additional pressure on the transportation system. These high volumes create significant peak period capacity challenges on all of the major roadways in the study area due to a lack of options for regional trips 3.1 Existing Conditions within this area of Hillsborough County. The area’s limited major roadways (e.g., Bloomingdale Avenue, Lithia Pinecrest Road, Lumsden Lumsden Road between Kings Avenue and Lithia Pinecrest Road is Road, and SR 60) are the only options that many area residents have currently a divided, four-lane roadway with a center median with between their neighborhoods and regional destinations. alternating, channelized left-turn lanes. As shown in Figure 3, the travel lanes are 12-feet-wide and the median is approximately 20-feet-wide. Additionally, the study area has a limited secondary roadway network, Concrete sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway for the so local trips must also compete on the major roadways, causing even entire length of the corridor segment. This segment has no existing more congestion. While many local destinations are clustered along bicycle facilities. The total existing right-of-way width throughout the the major corridors, there is a lack of connectivity between nearby retail segment is 96 feet. West of Kings Road, Lumsden Road widens to and commercial establishments. For vehicles, pedestrians, or bicyclists, a divided six-lane roadway with a center median with alternating, the roadway network offers few options for short distance east-west channelized left-turn lanes. Lumsden Road narrows to an undivided trips. The study area has more north-south corridor options, but these two-lane roadway east of Lithia Pinecrest Road. roads have limited capacity. Finally, the Brandon Study Area has low overall residential and employment densities, which makes providing The capacity of Lumsden Road between Kings Avenue and Lithia high-quality or meaningful transit service challenging. Pinecrest Road is not sufficient to meet the existing and future traffic volumes. In 2015, this segment of Lumsden Road carried an average The roadway network issues are described in more detail in Technical of 34,237 vehicles per day. This segment is currently operating at Memo 3: Network Evaluation and Planned Improvements. Transit a level of service (LOS) F. All four of the major intersections (Kings service related challenges and opportunities are discussed in Technical Avenue, John Moore Road/Parsons Avenue, Bryan Road, and Lithia Memo 7: Transit Service Analysis. The following sections offer analysis Pinecrest Road/Bell Shoals Road) along this segment of Lumsden Road of several options for mobility improvements to address these were included on the Imagine 2040 LRTP’s Congested Intersections challenges and issues. Map. By 2040, the anticipated traffic volumes will be greater than 50 percent of the roadway’s capacity.

2 Mobility Improvement Option Evaluation

Figure 2. Lumsden Road Widening Evaluation Limits

D R

E E

V V Y

A

A A

S N W

G O S

N O

I G

M

K

N I

W BRANDON BLVD (SR 60) N N

K E BRANDON BLVD E

D V

V A W ROBERTSON ST L

B D

R

E O D

OAKFIELD DR V O

Y A

L

D W

R S

O

V K

R E N

O O A

V D N O

O

W

E D S

S

E

B S E

L R

K R

U A A P L A B

P U S S R G D

BRANDON PKWY R DR N 2015: 34,237 vehicles per day,S LOS F A

D ST Y M O R 2040 - Volume/Capacity > 50%O

O B U W N L T

R

C

U

A B

W LUMSDEN RD E L DEN RD R

UMS M

E

L R

L D

AVE E WINDINGWOOD D I

D T

V D R H D

R A U R

I

D R

E A H A S

S

N N

R

R

T L

E P G A R

O

E I D

A A

Y N

N

I

C

O T

O E R

K C N

M

H H B

D R

E S

S

N E V D E S I L L R LAKES B H T

V L

O E

O J R

B D R

P ORANGEWALK DR

VIDENCE LAKES PRO BLVD S T O R IN G D BROOKER RD T V BROOKER RD O L Lumsden Study Limits Congested Intersections N AVE B

N (Imagine 2040 LRTP) 0 0.25 0.5 U Water ¯ Miles

R NTS

E C VIDE N PRO

3 Figure 3. Lumsden Road Existing Typical Section

WALK TRAVEL TRAVEL MEDIAN TRAVEL TRAVEL WALK 4’ 5’ 3’ 2’ 12’ 12’ 2’3” 15’6” 2’3” 12’ 12’ 2’ 3’ 5’ 4’ RIGHT-OF-WAY 96’

As shown in Figure 4, the existing land use on this corridor is provided on the south side of the roadway and a 12-foot-wide multi- predominately single-family residential. Some commercial retail and use path is provided on the north side. The total right-of-way width for office uses are located at the intersections of Kings Avenue, Parsons this proposed typical section is 145 feet. Avenue, Bryan Road, and Lithia Pinecrest Road. Institutional uses such as churches, schools, and recreational facilities are also located along the corridor. 3.3 Right-of-Way Impacts Based on the application of the proposed typical section, additional 3.2 Proposed Improvement right-of-way would be required. Based on the number of existing residential properties and the development pattern on the south side of The proposed improvement option for widening of Lumsden Road the roadway, the additional fifty feet of right-of-way would be needed between Kings Avenue and Lithia Pinecrest Road was developed using on the north side of Lumsden Road. the Hillsborough County standard for suburban arterial roadway. As shown in Figure 5, the proposed typical section includes a six-lane As shown in Figure 4, a total of forty parcels would be impacted on divided roadway with a center median with alternating channelized the north side of Lumsden Road. Based on the amount of the parcels left-turn lanes. Each travel lane is 12-feet-wide and the center median, that are impacted, thirty eight parcels were determined to be required inclusive of curb and gutter is 22-feet-wide. A five-foot-wide sidewalk is as part of a potential right-of-way take. This includes 13 commercial,

4 Mobility Improvement Option Evaluation Figure 4. Lumsden Road Existing Land Use and Proposed Right-of-Way Impacts

L i th ia P in Le ic thre ias

e t e P

d R

v L

v i

nd it R A e

A h

c i

s a n r

s e

n P a

g s i

y e

o t n e

n r

d R i

v e s v c

r d

B

R

A

K

A

r

a e

s n

s s

P

n e

a t g e

d R

v

y

o

v

n r

i d

s

R

A

A

r

B

K

s

n

a

s

n

a

P

g

y

o

n

r

i

s

r

B

K a

Lumsden Rd P Lumsden Rd

Lumsden Rd

d

R

d

e

R r

s

l

o e

a r

s o

l

o

o d

a M

o h

R

o

S

M n

h e

l r

s h

S

n l

l

o

l o

h e a

l

o

J o

o e

B

J M

h

B

S n

l h

l o

e J

B

Lumsden Rd (Kings to Lithia Pinecrest) Brandon Study Area Single-Family Mobile Home Park Light Commercial Public Communications/Utilities Recreational/Open Space Mining Brandon Study Area SinWgalete-Framily MobileTw Hoo-Fmame iPlyark LigLhigt hIntd Cusotmriaml ercial Heavy Commercial Public CommunicatRiiognhst-/oUf-twiliatyie/Rsoads/HighwRaeycsreational/ONpaetunr aSlpace Mining Vacant Brandon Corridors & Mixed Use Centers Pilot Project Brandon Study Area Single-Family Mobile Home Park Light Commercial Public Communications/Utilities Recreational/Open Space Mining Lumsden Rd (Kings to Lithia Pinecrest) Multi-Family Heavy Industrial Public/Quasi-Public/Institutional Educational Agricultural Unclassifield/Unknown Lumsden Rd (Kings to LWaitetr hia PinecrTweo-sFatm)ily Light Industrial Heavy Commercial Right-of-way/Roads/Highways Natural Vacant Water Two-Family Light Industrial Heavy Commercial Right-of-way/Roads/Highways Natural Vacant Brandon Corridors & Mixed Use Centers Pilot Project 0 300 600 1,200 Brandon Corridors & Mixed Use Centers Pilot ProMjeultci-tFamily Heavy Industrial Public/Quasi-Public/Institutional Educational Agricultural Unclassifield/Unknown Impacted Parcel Multi-Family Heavy Industrial Public/Quasi-Public/Institutional Educational Agricultural Unclassifield/Unknown Feet ¯ ROW Limits 0 300 600 0 300 1,200600 1,200 Feet ¯ Feet ¯ 5 Figure 5. Lumsden Road Proposed Typical Section

CURB/ CURB/ WALK PLANTER SHLDR TRAVEL TRAVEL TRAVEL MEDIAN/LEFT TURN TRAVEL TRAVEL TRAVEL SHLDR PLANTER WALK 7’ 12’ 5’ 5’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 2’3” 17’6” 2’3” 12’ 12’ 12’ 5’ 5’ 5’ 7’ RIGHT-OF-WAY 145’

21 residential, and 4 unimproved parcels. Sixteen businesses and 7 and provided to the study team on February 24, 2017. An ETDM sixteen residences would be affected and would require relocation. The Planning Screen was not initiated and circulated to the Environmental estimated cost for right-of-way acquisition is $24.8 million, including Technical Advisory Team (ETAT) for agency review and comment. land, demolition, processing, support, and relocation costs. The complete right-of-way estimate is provided in Attachment 1. A preliminary environmental evaluation of the results of the EST GIS analysis report was completed. Using a Type 2 Categorical Exclusion evaluation form as guidance, the environmental evaluation considered 3.4 Environmental Screening socio-economic, cultural, natural, and physical impacts. The key findings of the evaluation include the following potential impacts or The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Efficient concerns: Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) Environmental Screening Tool (EST) was used for a desktop evaluation of potential environmental ƒƒ Relocation Potential. An estimated 16 business and 16 issues along the corridor. An Area of Interest was established in the EST residential relocations would be required and the estimated right- composed of a 600-foot buffer along Lumsden Road (CR 676) between of-way cost is approximately $24.8 million. Kings Avenue and Lithia Pinecrest Road (CR 640) covering an Area ƒƒ Noise. The area has multiple residential noise receptors and of Interest of approximately 0.18 square miles.An EST Geographic there is a potential for increased roadway traffic noise as a Information System (GIS) analysis report was run by FDOT District result of the potential improvement. A noise study report would

6 Mobility Improvement Option Evaluation be required to determine the potential impact to noise sensitive corridor (more than 35 severe crashes between 2006 and 2010). receptors and if noise abatement would be required. The proposed addition of two travel lanes on Lumsden may result ƒƒ Contamination. Three potential contamination sources have higher traffic volumes, which could result in higher numbers of crashes been identified in the Area of Interest. One has received a No along this corridor. However, if the intersections along the corridor are Further Action Site Rehabilitation Completion Order closure status improved as part of the widening project, the addition of crosswalks, and one has received a No Cleanup Required closure status. The turn lanes, or other features could help reduce the number or severity third site (1001 Lithia Pinecrest Road) has a Natural Attenuation. of crashes. However, this site is outside the area of direct impact and there are no monitoring wells along the corridor. Additionally, the widening will include access related improvements as well as the addition of a seven-foot-wide bike lane, a 10-foot- ƒƒ Aesthetics. The existing roadway corridor is characterized wide multi-use path on the north side of the road, and five-foot-wide by areas of mature trees.Removal of the tree canopy for the roadway widening would represent a change in the aesthetic sidewalk on the south side of the road. These improvements will character of the community.The potential effects would need to improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. be vetted through community involvement and local government coordination. 3.7 Summary of Findings More details on the evaluation and the complete screening reports and mapping are provided in Attachment 1. Right-of-way impacts and acquisition costs are a significant consideration in the feasibility of the widening of Lumsden Road between Kings Avenue and Lithia Pinecrest Road. The majority of 3.5 Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate the impacted parcels would require acquisition, at a cost of almost $25 million. Construction is estimated to cost an additional $13.5 A preliminary construction cost estimate was prepared for the widening million. Since roadways that feed into Lumsden Road to the east of of the 1.49-mile-long segment of Lumsden Road between Kings this segment would not be widened, the potential benefit of increased Avenue and Lithia Pinecrest Road from a four lane divided roadway capacity or travel times on this segment may be limited. Congestion to a six lane divided roadway. The estimated cost for construction is may increase at the Lithia Pinecrest Road/Lumsden Road intersection $13,470,000 or approximately $1.5 million per lane mile. The cost or on roadways east of the widened segment. Capacity analysis on the estimate is based on FDOT construction cost tables. More details are roadway and network should be considered to evaluate the benefit of provided in Attachment 1. this improvement option. 3.6 Safety Impacts Generally, the rate of crashes on the corridor is anticipated to decline if the proposed improvement is implemented. This segment of Lumsden Road was not identified as a high frequency or top severe injury crash

7 4. BLOOMINGDALE AVENUE Some examples include the following locations (as shown in Figure 7): ƒƒ Connecticut Avenue – six-lane cross section in Washington, D.C.; Bloomingdale Avenue is a major east-west arterial that forms the southern edge of the Brandon Study Area. It carries a significant ƒƒ Jarvis Street – five-lane cross section in Toronto, Ontario; number of commuter and local trips from the study area and ƒƒ UT 173 – seven-lane cross section in Salt Lake City, Utah; residential areas to the south and southeast to US 301 and I-75 to the ƒƒ Bay Street – four-lane cross section in Jacksonville, Florida; west. The study team evaluated the feasibility of converting the center ƒƒ South Atlanta Street – three-lane cross section in Roswell, turn lane and median to a reversible lane to accommodate peak Georgia; and period traffic volumes. The Bloomingdale Avenue reversible lanes study limits are shown on Figure 6. ƒƒ Fall Creek Parkway North Drive – five-lane cross section in Indianapolis, Indiana. The existing five-lane cross section and traffic patterns on 4.1 Existing Conditions Bloomingdale Avenue make this corridor a good candidate for As a major east-west arterial, Bloomingdale Avenue carries a heavy reversible lanes consideration. The following sections outline amount of commuter traffic from the study area and adjacent areas the screening process for implementation of reversible lanes on during the AM and PM peak periods. Bloomingdale Avenue is a four- Bloomingdale Avenue. lane arterial with a two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) through its center west of Bell Shoals Drive and directional median openings east of Bell 4.3 Reversible Lane Screening Shoals Drive. The speed limit on Bloomingdale Avenue is 45 miles per hour (mph). Reversible lanes are being considered on this corridor A preliminary screening was conducted to evaluate the feasibility because it is highly congested during peak periods, constrained from of reversible lanes along Bloomingdale Avenue from US 301 to widening options due to the adjacent developments on both the north Lithia Pinecrest Road. The screening process was based on research and south sides of the corridor, and earlier studies indicated that it had methodology from the National Cooperative Highway Research a relatively high directional split in the peak periods. Program (NCHRP). NCHRP Synthesis 340: Convertible Roadways and Lanes, identifies a list of warrants that are used to determine the viability of reversible lanes implementation along a corridor. The 4.2 Reversible Lanes Overview warrants relate to peak-hour traffic characteristics and existing network Reversible lanes corridors exist throughout the country with different conditions. levels of signing and lane control, including no lane controls, minimal Based on input from the NCHRP Synthesis 340, the following criteria lane controls, signalized lane control, or physical separation. They are or considerations were evaluated during the preliminary screening intended to add peak-hour capacity and may be applied to limited process: access facilities or arterials. ƒƒ Directional traffic split during peak periods; ƒƒ Average operating speed reduction during peak periods; 8 Mobility Improvement Option Evaluation R

D

D

O

O

Figure 6. BloomingdaleB Avenue Reversible Lane Evaluation Limits

W

R E

A K

N A

D L O BRANDONMAINST R S

D

N W E T TO S D

N V

O R L R W A D C BRANDONPKWY U N E S R Y

N A C E N

ENT A

P TE O S

R W R

B S LV A P D G S N I W LUMSDEN RD K E LUMSDEN RD

CAUSEWAY BLVD D R

D

G

D E

R R

V

R

U

A

O B

R

D N

C

I

U

E

E

K

O L

R

L

L L

L

A

C I

F

A

T M

V

S N

I

S A

S

S S

R

D D UR K A

R NT

A 75 R ¤£301 P ¨¦§ D T N CRESCE PROVIDENCELAKESBLVD

RD KE LA O T BROOKER RD N

VD D R BL L E D O I G R T

D

D G I

R D H R I E R

R A S E

C N P R S N P D

E I E E R L N

R D O A E I C O

K V VID E C

O

O

E V

O N N R C R N A P C H E

M

E

A

U E S S

S T Y

D

L

R R

G

N I D R U LV R L

N B N

B D

V H

I

E

VALHALLAPONDDR B

K

B O O GUILES RD

S

J

R

P

P RO G Westbound Directional Splits R E SS B 301 LV ¤£ AM - 64%PM - 41% D M A G W BLOOMINGDALE AVE E BLOOMINGDALE AVE N O L IA P A

D R

R K

N

B L A AVE V P C O

D R N TH Eastbound Directional Splits U IN D W GRAND AM - 36%PM - 59%

¨¦§75 ¤£301

Bloomingdale Study Limits 0 0.5 1 Water ¯ Miles NTS

9 Figure 7. Reversible Lane Examples

Connecticut Avenue in Washington, D.C. Jarvis Street in Toronto, Ontario

UT 173 in Salt Lake City, Utah Bay Street in Jacksonville, Florida

South Atlanta Street in Roswell, Georgia Fall Creek Parkway North Drive in Indianapolis, Indiana

10 Mobility Improvement Option Evaluation ƒƒ Qualitative assessment of traffic operations, such as the number Table 1. Directional Traffic Splits – Recommended Ranges for of commuter-related trips or other options for improvements; and Reversible Lanes ƒƒ Other considerations for implementation of reversible lanes, such as left-turn lane movement restrictions and other design Source Range considerations. AASHTO Green Book > 65% Details on how Bloomingdale Avenue meets these criteria is provided ITE 66 - 75% in this section. MUTCD 66 - 75%

4.3.1 DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC SPLIT CRITERIA The directional traffic split is the percentage of vehicles traveling in the and the directional splits ranged from 57 to 74 percent. During the PM peak direction versus the off-peak direction; the larger the disparity peak hour, none of the segments had a directional split greater than (during both AM and PM peak periods) the more appropriate reversible or equal to 65 percent and the directional splits ranged from 55 to 61 lanes implementation may be. The NCHRP Synthesis 340 has compiled percent. Figure 6 shows the directional splits graphically. Although the a list of values from the American Association of State Highway directional traffic split criterion is not met globally or for every segment, and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Green Book, the Institute of the global AM peak hour directional split is just below the thresholds Transportation Engineers (ITE), and the Manual on Uniform Traffic identified in Table 1 with a maximum segment split near the upper end Control Devices (MUTCD) of directional traffic splits that indicate when of the recommended ranges. Therefore, reversible lanes should not be reversible lanes might be a viable option, as shown in Table 1. Based dismissed on this criterion alone. on the recommendations of these sources, reversible lanes may be 4.3.2 SPEED REDUCTION CRITERIA appropriate if at least 65 percent of traffic in the peak period is flowing in the peak direction. The average operating speed of a corridor is also an important factor in determining the feasibility of reversible lane implementation. The The directional traffic splits were calculated on each segment along NCHRP Synthesis 340 recommends that if the average operating Bloomingdale Avenue between US 301 and Lithia Pinecrest Road using speed of the corridor decreases by at least 25 percent during the peak traffic volumes from the FDOT District Seven Districtwide Traffic Signal periods, reversible lanes may be warranted. Retiming Report for the US 301 and Bloomingdale Avenue Corridors (April 2016). Global (systemwide) AM and PM peak hour directional The FDOT District Seven Districtwide Traffic Signal Retiming Report splits were established using a weighted average of the two-way for the US 301 and Bloomingdale Avenue Corridors shows travel time segment peak-hour volumes and the measured directional splits. results for the peak and free-flow conditions. These results show that the average free-flow travel speeds along Bloomingdale Avenue The AM peak direction was determined to occur in the westbound between US 301 and Lithia Pinecrest Road are approximately 43 mph direction with a weighted average of 64 percent. The PM peak in both the westbound and eastbound directions. The peak direction direction was determined to occur in the eastbound direction with average travel speeds (with signals retimed for optimal operations) a weighted average of 59 percent. During the AM peak hour, five along Bloomingdale Avenue between US 301 and Lithia Pinecrest Road segments had a directional split greater than or equal to 65 percent are approximately 26 and 22 mph in the AM and PM peak hours,

11 respectively. These peak-hour peak direction speeds are approximately Table 2. Bloomingdale Avenue Operating Speeds 40 and 49 percent reductions of the average operating speed of 43 mph in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Therefore, the Average Peak Allowable Actual Allowable Actual Free- Direction Free-Flow Free-Flow Free-Flow Free-Flow speed reduction criterion is met, since there is a large reduction in the Peak average operating speeds during the AM and PM peak periods, as Flow Average Speed Speed Speed Speed Period shown in Table 2. Speed Speed Reduction Reduction Reduction Reduction (mph) (mph) (%) (%) (mph) (mph) 4.3.3 QUALITATIVE CRITERIA AM 43 26 25% 40% 11 17 Some of the reversible lanes screening criteria proposed by the NCHRP PM 43 22 25% 49% 11 21 Synthesis 340 are qualitative. These criteria include:

ƒƒ Periodic and Predictable Traffic Patterns. The first criteria is whether traffic congestion is periodic and predictable. Along Bloomingdale Avenue traffic is periodic and predictable, since option. However, minor improvements at intersections, adding AM and PM peak hours occur consistently at the same times new signals, or implementing innovative intersection treatments during weekdays. may be viable options for relieving Bloomingdale Avenue. These treatments are discussed in more detail in Section 4.6. ƒƒ High Proportion of Commuters. Reversible lane corridors should contain a high proportion of commuter-type traffic that ƒƒ Sensible Termini. The reversible lanes terminal conditions desire to traverse the area without turns or stops. This corridor must be appropriately designed to provide easy transition has a high number of commuters, mainly flowing to and from between normal and reverse flow lanes. If reversible lanes were regional employment centers including MacDill Air Force Base, implemented along this corridor, the US 301/Bloomingdale downtown Tampa, and Westshore in Tampa during the weekdays. Avenue intersection would need to be improved or reconfigured to prevent it from acting as a choke point, especially for ƒƒ No Other Alternatives/Corridors to Relieve Traffic. westbound traffic during the AM peak period. This intersection Introduction of reversible lanes are acceptable if there are no also meters eastbound traffic during the PM peak period. other acceptable alternative, including widening, construction I-75/US 301 interchange improvements may also need to be of a parallel roadway, or reconfiguring an adjacent street to incorporated as part of the US 301/Bloomingdale Avenue work as a one-way pair. Widening of Bloomingdale Avenue intersection improvements to ensure that the ramps do not act as is not a feasible option due to the expected right-of-way choke points. impacts. Brandon is nearly built out with no viable options for adding a new parallel route that would be expected to relieve The Bloomingdale Avenue/Gornto Lake Road intersection Bloomingdale Avenue. Lumsden Road and SR 60 (Brandon provides a sensible western terminus due to its cross section Boulevard) are the only other routes that traverse Brandon change to six lanes on the west side of the intersection. There are completely from east to west, and they are located several miles two sensible eastern terminal options available: the Bloomingdale to the north. Additionally, there is no other street adjacent to Avenue/Lithia Pinecrest Road intersection or the Bloomingdale Bloomingdale Avenue that may be considered as a one-way pair Avenue/Bell Shoals Road intersection.

12 Mobility Improvement Option Evaluation The Bloomingdale Avenue/Lithia Pinecrest Road intersection Table 3. Reversible Lane Screening Criteria was considered as a potential eastern terminus due to its cross section change on the east side of the intersection to two lanes, Criteria Met? undivided. Alternatively, the Bloomingdale Avenue/Bell Shoals Road intersection may also be used as a potential eastern limit Quantitative Criteria due to its cross section change on the east side of the intersection Directional traffic split > 65% no to include landscaped raised medians with directional left-turn Reduction in average operating speed > 25% during peak hours yes openings and the presence of Bloomingdale High School, which Qualitative Criteria has school bus traffic and novice drivers using this driveway. Bell Congestion is periodic and predictable yes Shoals Drive also has a high volume of northbound left traffic accessing Bloomingdale Avenue and is planned to be widened to High commuter-type traffic yes four lanes from Boyette Road to Bloomingdale Avenue, according No other feasible improvement options no to the Hillsborough County MPO 2015-2019 Transportation Reversible lanes terminals provide easy transition yes Improvement Program (TIP).

4.3.4 SUMMARY OF BLOOMINGDALE AVENUE REVERSIBLE Bloomingdale Avenue intersection and/or more activity at recreational LANES SCREENING and commercial land uses during this time. The high reduction in Table 3 shows a summary of the reversible lanes screening results for average operating speeds and observed delay during the peak periods the Bloomingdale Avenue corridor from US 301 to Lithia Pinecrest indicate that a reversible lanes system may provide operational Road in Hillsborough County. All screening criteria are met with the benefits, even without meeting this criterion. exceptions of the directional traffic split threshold and no other feasible improvement options available. While minor improvements at intersections, adding new signals, or implementing innovative intersection treatments may be viable If reversible lanes were implemented, the US 301/Bloomingdale options for relieving Bloomingdale Avenue congestion, traditional Avenue intersection would need to be improved or reconfigured to improvements that would provide a major relief to this corridor, such as prevent it from acting as a choke point, especially for westbound widening, construction of a new parallel roadway, or reconfiguring an traffic during the AM peak period. This intersection also meters adjacent street to work as a one-way pair are not feasible options. eastbound traffic during the PM peak period. I-75/US 301 interchange improvements may also need to be incorporated as part of the US Since most of the reversible lanes screening criteria are met or nearly 301/Bloomingdale Avenue intersection improvements to ensure that met, the Bloomingdale Avenue corridor was advanced to identify the ramps do not act as choke points. other special considerations for implementing reversible lanes and to conduct a high-level traffic analysis to determine the operational Although the directional traffic split criterion is not met globally or for benefits of their implementation on this corridor. Other potential every segment, the AM peak hour does show a heavy traffic flow in intersection treatment options were also further explored. the westbound direction. The PM peak hour does not show as great of a disparity, perhaps due to a metering condition at the US 301/

13 4.4 Special Considerations for Implementation the reversible lanes limits to traverse the system completely and exit. Police or service vehicles are usually the first and last to enter In addition to the screening criteria for determining reversible lane and exit the segment, although advanced signal control systems feasibility, the NCHRP Synthesis 340 identifies some other qualitative and movable barriers have also been used on existing reversible considerations for designing a reversible lanes system, as described in lanes corridors. the following section. ƒƒ Traffic Control Devices. Traffic control devices are essential to ensuring safe and efficient reversible lanes facility operations. ƒƒ Left-Turn Movements. Restricting or prohibiting left-turn All signal heads at signalized intersections within the reversible maneuvers off the mainline at major and mid-block intersections lanes limits must be updated to control all of the possible lane is desirable on a reversible lanes corridor. Allowing these configurations (AM and PM peak periods and off-peak periods). maneuvers can result in increased sideswipe, head-on, and In addition to the signal head updates, overhead gantries should angle type crashes due to drivers not recognizing which lane is be placed at frequent intervals that allow at least one signal the appropriate turn lane. There may also be increased queuing indication (preferably two) to be within the driver’s view at any while the left-turning vehicle waits for an acceptable gap, which point along the corridor, including vehicles turning from cross reduces the operational benefits of a reversible lanes system. streets and driveways onto Bloomingdale Avenue. These gantries ƒƒ Minimum Number of Lanes in Each Direction. The NCHRP are used to indicate which lanes are specifically reserved for each Synthesis 340 advises keeping at least two lanes open in each directional use. direction on reversible lanes facilities, regardless of the volumes in the off-peak direction. This is to prevent congestion that may arise from a turning vehicle, crash, or heavy vehicle/bus 4.5 Reversible Lanes Configurations Considered operations. A single lane in the off-peak direction could result Two reversible lanes configurations were considered for Bloomingdale in excessive queuing and delay and capacity analysis should be Avenue. Figure 8 shows the plan view of each configuration during the conducted to determine the expected impacts of implementing AM and PM peak periods and off-peak periods. reversible lanes with one lane in the off-peak direction. Prohibiting on-street parking is also recommended since it can ƒƒ 3/2 Reversible Lane Configuration. The first configuration increase the capacity of the corridor by allowing more through consists of three lanes in the peak direction and two lanes in the lanes. It also reduces the potential for crashes involving a off-peak direction (3/2 Configuration). parked vehicle. There is currently no on-street parking on the ƒƒ 3/1 TWLTL/1 Reversible Lane Configuration. The second Bloomingdale Avenue corridor. configuration consists of three lanes in the peak direction, one ƒƒ Transition Period Logistics. The transition period is the two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL), and one lane in the off-peak period of time when the traffic is switched from one direction to direction (3/1 TWLTL/1 Configuration). The outside lane in both the other. This procedure allows vehicles within the lane that is the eastbound and westbound directions would be maintained being reversed to clear the system before allowing the opposing as a permanent lane in those respective directions under both movement access to that lane. At a minimum, the transition configurations. During off peak periods, the Bloomingdale period must include the time required for the last vehicle entering Avenue cross section would consist of two lanes in each direction and one TWLTL in the middle lane (2/1 TWLTL/2). 14 Mobility Improvement Option Evaluation Figure 8. Bloomingdale Avenue Reversible Lane Configuration3/1 Concepts TWLTL/13/1 TWLTL/1 3/2 Reversible3/2 Reversible 3/1 TWLTL/13/1 TWLTL/1 3/2 Reversible Lane Configuration 3/1 TWLTL/1 Reversible Lane Configuration

AM Peak Period AM Peak Period 3 westboundAM Peak lanes, AMPeriod 2 eastboundPeak (Westbound Period lanes, (Westboundno left 3 turnlanes) lane 3 lanes) AM Peak3 westbound AMPeriod Peak lanes, (Westbound Period 1 eastbound (Westbound 3 lane, lanes) two-way 3 lanes) left turn lane

Off Peak Period Off Peak Period 2 westboundOff Peak lanes, OffPeriod 2 eastboundPeak Period lanes, two-way left turn lane Off Peak2 westbound OffPeriod Peak lanes, Period 2 eastbound lanes, two-way left turn lane

PM Peak Period PM Peak Period 2 westboundPM Peak lanes, PMPeriod 3 eastboundPeak (Eastbound Period lanes, (Eastboundno left3 lanes) turn lane 3 lanes) PM Peak1 westbound PMPeriod Peak lane, (Eastbound Period 3 eastbound (Eastbound 3 lanes, lanes) two-way 3 lanes) left turn lane

15 Figure 9. Signing Schematic Example with TWLTL Shifted During Peak Periods

Figure 9 shows a signing schematic example for a configuration where ƒƒ Volume-to-capacity ratios (v/cs) were selected as the analysis the TWLTL is shifted during peak periods, similar to the 3/1 TWLTL/1 measures for the 3/1 TWLTL/1 configuration because the configuration. Figure 10 shows the signing schematic from the cross main drawback is that one of the through lanes in the off peak section view for the 3/2 and 3/1 TWLTL/1 configurations. direction is used as a TWLTL while the lanes are reversed. V/cs capture whether or not this lane reduction causes the off peak 4.5.1 TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS direction to exceed capacity. Existing year (2016) traffic was used for the analysis to estimate the 3/2 Reversible Lanes Configuration immediate impacts of relieving the corridor. The evaluation focused on the AM peak period since it is the worst case for Bloomingdale Avenue The 3/2 reversible lanes configuration was analyzed by travel time of as traffic is metered in the PM by the US 301/Bloomingdale Avenue the entire network and westbound Bloomingdale Avenue in the AM intersection. Two different analysis measures were considered for each peak hour. No eastbound or westbound left-turn movements were of the reversible lane configurations: allowed from Bloomingdale Avenue in this analysis as the existing left-turn lanes would be used as the reversible through lane under this ƒƒ Travel time was selected as the analysis measure for the 3/2 configuration. These left-turn movements were instead accommodated configuration because the main benefit of this configuration by Median U-Turn (MUT) intersections on the north and south legs of includes providing an additional through lane, but the main all signalized intersections along Bloomingdale Avenue that were in the drawback is that left-turn movements must be restricted while the Synchro models provided by Hillsborough County. center lane is reversed. Travel time captures whether or not the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. 16 Mobility Improvement Option Evaluation Figure 10. Bloomingdale Avenue Reversible Lanes Signing

3/2 Reversible Lane Configuration 3/1 TWLTL/1 Reversible Lane Configuration

17 MUT intersections require eastbound and westbound left-turning Figure 11. Median U-Turn (MUT) Intersection Schematic vehicles to turn right onto the cross streets, make U-turns, and continue through from the northbound and southbound approaches, respectively, to execute their original desired left-turn movement. 3/2 Reversible Lane Configuration - PM Peak Period Figure 11 shows a schematic of eastbound and westbound left turn 2 westbound lanes, 3 eastbound lanes, no left turn lane movements routed through a MUT intersection. MUT intersections may require additional right-turn capacity at the master intersection to accommodate the increased volume due to the rerouted left-turn movements. Right-of-way may also be required on the north and south No left turn lanes legs of the cross streets. are provided on Bloomingdale Avenue. These MUT intersections are necessary under this configuration due to Vehicles must turn the lack of a grid system in this area for vehicles to use to reposition right at a north-south themselves for their desired movement. The MUT intersections were street, make a U-turn coded in the Synchro model as either signalized or unsignalized in a median on the intersections, although a roundabout may also be a viable option. The north-south street, Synchro travel time estimates, shown in Table 4, illustrate that while a and proceed straight travel time reduction would occur on westbound Bloomingdale Avenue through intersection. in the AM peak hour with a 3/2 reversible lane configuration, the overall networkwide travel times would see an increase. This is due to the large number of anticipated left-turns that would be required to make right turns at intersections followed by median u-turns. The travel R3-18 Sign image from the Manual of Traffic Signs This sign image copyright Richard C. Moeur. All rights reserved. This sign image copyright Richard C. Moeur. All rights reserved. This sign image copyright Richard C. Moeur. Sign image from the Manual of Traffic Signs Traffic Sign image from the Manual of Table 4. 3/2 Reversible Lanes Configuration Travel Times in R3-18 AM Peak Hour

Existing Configuration 3/2 Configuration Scenario Travel Times Travel Times Networkwide */** AM Peak 1,695 hours 1,850 hours Hour Westbound Bloomingdale 671 hours 582 hours Avenue */** AM Peak Hour

* MUTs assumed on all north-south legs to remove left-turns from Bloomingdale Avenue. ** MUT lefts do not include additional mid-block lefts that are currently using the TWLTL. 18 Mobility Improvement Option Evaluation Figure 12. Bloomingdale Avenue TWLTL Rerouted Volume Schematic Watson Road

Rerouted left-turn movement is now a right-turn movement

Bloomingdale Avenue

Existing left-turn movement from TWLTL

*Note that the rerouted left-turn movements are not accounted for in the Table 4 results. time estimates do not include mid-block lefts currently using the TWLTL 3/1 TWLTL/1 Reversible Lanes Configuration that would be restricted under this configuration and instead filtered through signalized intersections and MUTs to access their destination, The 3/1 TWLTL/1 reversible lanes configuration was analyzed by v/c as shown in Figure 12. This means the 3/2 configuration networkwide of the off-peak direction (eastbound) in the AM peak hour using LOS travel times would likely be even higher than the analysis results show. service volumes from the 2013 FDOT Quality/Level of Service (Q/ LOS) Handbook as capacity threshold estimates. The average volume With the 3/2 configuration in place, approximately 100 driveways that traveling in the eastbound direction on Bloomingdale Avenue in the currently allow left turns movements in would not be accessible via AM peak hour is 1,250 veh/h from Gornto Lake Road to Bell Shoals left-turn-in maneuvers from Bloomingdale Avenue while the lanes are Road. Table 5 shows that a lane reduction from tin the eastbound reversed from US 301 to Bell Shoals Road and another 20 from Bell direction during the AM peak period would cause this lane to be nearly Shoals Road to Lithia Pinecrest Road. Many of these properties would 60 percent over capacity. not be accessible via another drive from a cross street and would need to be accessed via the MUT intersections to eventually make a right- turn-in maneuver at the desired destination.

19 Table 5. 3/1 TWLTL/1 Reversible Lanes Configuration Off intersections. These upgrades, especially at the signalized intersections, Peak Capacity Reduction in AM Peak Hour may require other additional geometric adjustments in order for the intersection to safely comply with design standards. Average Volume Capacity AM Eastbound Scenario (veh/h) (veh/h)* v/c Left-turn movements at unsignalized driveways between signalized intersections may need to be prohibited during transition periods, Existing Configuration 1,250 1,800 0.697 even under the 3/1 TWLTL/1 configuration. This could be difficult to 3/1 TWLTL/1 1,250 792 1.584 enforce and may eliminate access to some destinations temporarily. Configuration Although a pattern of increased crashes or head-on collisions has not * Capacity for existing (2 lanes - 1,800) and 3/1/1 configurations (1 lane - 792) based on 2013 FDOT Q/LOS Handbook, Table 7 been observed relating to reversible lanes retrofits, potential safety concerns may arise. Driver behavior varies by location and local users’ 4.5.2 IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS OF EACH REVERSIBLE awareness and adaption to this type of new configuration should be LANES CONFIGURATION carefully monitored. Public outreach, engagement, and education Reversible lanes implementation on Bloomingdale Avenue has some are essential for facilitating users’ and stakeholders’ thorough impacts and implications common to both lane configuration options understanding of this treatment method. that should be carefully considered. The US 301/Bloomingdale 3/2 Reversible Lanes Configuration Avenue intersection and I-75/US 301 interchange currently act as a bottleneck/meter and would need to be improved or reconfigured prior The 3/2 reversible lanes configuration provides an additional through to implementing reversible lanes. Also, overhead gantries would be lane with the expectation of adding more capacity to the peak direction required at frequent intervals and signal-related hardware upgrades through movement. As shown in Table 4, travel time is improved for (example shown in Figure 13) would be required at existing signalized AM westbound Bloomingdale Avenue traffic, although network-wide

Figure 13. Reversible Lanes Signalized Intersection Hardware Example

20 Mobility Improvement Option Evaluation travel time worsens under this configuration compared to the existing demand volume, which would include the increase in left turns. Right- configuration. Although this configuration offers some benefits to the of-way may be required on the north and south legs of signalized peak direction through movement, there are also several drawbacks. intersections to construct the MUT intersections for the appropriate design vehicle. No left-turn movements would be allowed from Bloomingdale Avenue at signalized intersections or midblock driveways. MUT intersections, or Prohibiting left-turn movements on Bloomingdale Avenue also may a similar treatment, would be needed on the north and south legs of be difficult to enforce with no physical barrier present and may be all signalized intersections to facilitate those prohibited left turns. This too restrictive in allowing drivers to access their desired destinations. would allow the master intersection (existing signalized intersection on Drivers may attempt to make left-turn movements from the inside Bloomingdale Avenue) to operate as a three-phase signal. However, through lanes if the TWLTL was removed, which would be detrimental the MUT traffic would include left-turns currently being made from the to the system’s operations as it would reduce the capacity of the inside TWLTL. All driveway counts between signalized intersections would be through lane in each direction and the full intended benefit of the 3/2 needed along Bloomingdale Avenue to accurately analyze the MUT configuration would not be realized. intersections and their master intersections using the fully expected

Figure 14. Driveway Turns onto Bloomingdale Avenue Under 3/2 Configuration (AM Peak Period)

Peak period traffic is dispersed amongst 3 lanes instead of 2.

Bloomingdale Avenue

Existing TWLTL is no longer available as a receiving lane for vehicles turning left onto Bloomingdale Avenue.

21 Additionally, there is a potential for increased crashes for vehicles Figure 15. Dual Left Turns onto Bloomingdale Avenue turning onto Bloomingdale Avenue from midblock driveways or houses Under 3/1 TWLTL/1 Configuration as there is no TWLTL available to receive them and eastbound AM traffic will be dispersed amongst 3 lanes instead of 2 and conversely for westbound PM traffic, making it more difficult to choose a gap in the traffic stream. Figure 14 depicts this situation. Special consideration should be given to allowing turns from driveways onto Bloomingdale Avenue when the reversed lanes are activated. Right-in/right-out restrictions should be considered during the peak periods when the Option to use a lanes are reversed. gate to close the inside left-turn Option to place 3/1 TWLTL/1 Reversible Lanes Configuration bay when there is traffic cones on only one receiving the inside left-turn The TWLTL remains open and access to businesses is maintained lane available bay when there is under this configuration. However, the minimum recommended two on Bloomingdale only one receiving lanes is not able to be maintained in each direction at all times under Avenue. lane available this configuration. A single lane in the off-peak direction is expected on Bloomingdale to operate greatly over capacity. Excessive delay and queuing in the Avenue. off-peak direction could occur in the event of an accident or due

to bus stops. In these cases, vehicles may attempt to go around the Providence Road obstruction via the TWLTL. Option to Left-turn movements at signalized intersections from Bloomingdale permanently Avenue and cross streets may be possible to maintain, but should close the inside be given careful consideration for safety and geometric compliance left-turn bay. with design standards. Since Bloomingdale Avenue has a five- lane cross section, dual left turns from north-south cross streets at signalized intersections would need to be removed or controlled with a gate to only allow one left-turn lane to be in operation when only one receiving lane is available. Traffic cones may also be manually placed in the closed left-turn lane as shown in Figure 15. The Bloomingdale Avenue receiving lane for single left-turn lanes from Bloomingdale Avenue’s signalized cross streets should be the designated permanent lane for both the eastbound and westbound directions for consistency and repeatability in line with driver expectations. Left-turn movements from

22 Mobility Improvement Option Evaluation Bloomingdale Avenue’s unsignalized cross streets should also be given approach), reduce the intersection v/c ratio, and/or improve the LOS. careful consideration for potential conversion to right-in/right-out It is expected that these improvements can be constructed within the configurations. existing right-of-way, but would need to be verified during preliminary layout. 4.6 Other Treatment Options Considered ƒƒ Gornto Lake Road-Duncan Road. Change the eastbound, northbound, and southbound permitted rights to permitted Although several of the reversible lanes criteria were met during overlaps and retime signal. the screening, there were numerous concerns associated with ƒƒ Providence Road. Add an eastbound right-turn bay, change implementing reversible lanes on Bloomingdale Avenue under the eastbound, westbound, and southbound permitted rights to both configurations that were considered. Therefore, other permitted overlaps, and retime signal. congestion mitigation strategies were considered for this corridor. ƒƒ Watson Road. Add a left-turn bay to the northbound approach Minor intersection improvements at signalized intersections along and change the northbound left to protected and the southbound Bloomingdale Avenue were analyzed and are expected to relieve some left to permitted-protected and retime signal. of the existing congestion. However, these short-term improvements are not intended to be ultimate solutions to Bloomingdale Avenue’s ƒƒ Kings Avenue. Add a right-turn bay to the westbound approach congestion. The TWLTL was also screened for locations with high and retime signal. crash frequencies where a new signal may facilitate movements off of ƒƒ John Moore Road. Add an exclusive right-turn bay to the Bloomingdale Avenue or onto Bloomingdale Avenue from midblock southbound approach and change the westbound, northbound, driveways. and southbound permitted rights to permitted overlaps. ƒƒ Bryan Road. Redesignate the southbound approach lanes from A more elaborate concept has also been considered at a high-level a left-turn lane, a shared left-through lane, and a right-turn lane for a potential long-term solution. This concept involves exploring to dual left-turn lanes and a shared through-right lane. opportunities to reduce phases at signalized intersections along ƒƒ Bell Shoals Road. Add an exclusive right-turn bay to the Bloomingdale Avenue via innovative techniques, such as quadrant southbound approach; redesignate the southbound through-right roads, displaced left-turns, and/or MUT intersections. The TWLTL would lane to a through only. Change the westbound, northbound, and be able to remain open with these treatments implemented as well and southbound permitted rights to permitted overlaps. the existing four-phase intersections could be reduced to two or three phases, depending on the changes implemented. ƒƒ Culbreath Road. Redesignate the southbound approach lanes from a left-turn lane and a shared through-right lane to a shared 4.6.1 SHORT-TERM IMPROVEMENTS left-through lane and a right-turn lane. Various improvements were considered at signalized intersections ƒƒ Lithia-Pinecrest Road. Add an exclusive right-turn bay to along Bloomingdale Avenue for congestion mitigation using traffic the westbound and southbound approaches; redesignate the volumes from the FDOT District Seven Districtwide Traffic Signal westbound and southbound shared through-right lanes to Retiming Report for the US 301 and Bloomingdale Avenue Corridors. through lanes only. Change the westbound and southbound These improvements are expected to lower the delay (intersection and permitted rights to permitted overlaps. 23 4.6.2 ADDING NEW SIGNALS Figure 16. Quadrant Road Intersection Route Example at The TWLTL was screened for locations with high crash frequencies Bloomingdale Avenue/Watson Road using 2010-2015 crash data provided by the Hillsborough MPO that would potentially benefit from a new signal to facilitate easier movements off of Bloomingdale Avenue or onto Bloomingdale Avenue from midblock driveways. However, the crash frequencies in the TWLTL Westbound left were low and sporadic without a clear pattern or indication that there turn is made via is a repetitive safety concern that could be addressed through physical a quadrant road improvements to the network. Therefore, new signal options were not loop movement. further explored as they could potentially increase the delay and travel times along Bloomingdale Avenue unnecessarily, as well as add conflict points that could lead to a safety concern where one currently does not exist.

4.6.3 INNOVATIVE INTERSECTION TREATMENTS/MEDIAN Bloomingdale Avenue U-TURN CORRIDOR Quadrant roads, displaced left-turns, and MUT intersections are gaining popularity throughout the country as effective methods for mitigating congestion through their ability to reduce traditional four- Eastbound left turn is

Watson Road phase intersections to three or two phases, depending on how many made via a quadrant movements are modified, thereby increasing an intersection’s capacity. road left-turn While quadrant road and displaced left-turn opportunities may be movement. available and suitable at certain intersections along Bloomingdale Avenue, their potential impacts should also be taken into consideration.

Quadrant roads can require a large amount of space and right-of-way if an existing road alignment, such as a driveway for a development or grid-style network, is not already in place. Pavement improvements Displaced left-turn lanes typically require an additional signal where may be required on an existing alignment being used as a quadrant the crossover occurs, space to generate an appropriate crossover road to accommodate the increased traffic loadings. Figure 16 shows angle, a physical buffer between the displaced left-turn lane itself and an example of how vehicles may be routed through a quadrant the adjacent lane carrying traffic in the reverse direction, and may road intersection. Note that there are many variations of quadrant restrict access into businesses. For example, right-in/right outs may be road intersection configurations and multiple movements may be impacted by displacing a left-turn lane. Figure 17 shows an example of accommodated with one quadrant road, including left and right turns. how vehicles may be routed through a displaced left-turn intersection.

24 Mobility Improvement Option Evaluation Figure 17. Displaced Left-Turn Route Example at Figure 18. MUT Example at Bloomingdale Avenue/Watson Bloomingdale Avenue/Watson Road Road

Southbound left turn is Two-phase signal Westbound left turn made via a displaced at displaced left- is made via a MUT left-turn maneuver. turn crossover loon (bulb out) on This movement may point the left side of the operate in concurrence U-turn maneuver. with the northbound through movement.

Bloomingdale Avenue Bloomingdale Avenue

Northbound left turn is

Watson Road made via a displaced Watson Road left-turn maneuver. Two-phase signal Eastbound left turn This movement may at displaced left- is made using a MUT operate in concurrence turn crossover via a hook turn on with the southbound point the right side of the through movement. U-turn maneuver.

MUT intersections often require an awkward piece of right-of-way MUT intersections are generally anticipated to have the fewest right- to accommodate large turning radii for trucks via a loon or bulb of-way impacts in this study area out of the three treatments discussed out, add travel distance to particular movements, and route certain as only one concentrated space is required for a loon or bulb out movements through multiple signals and the same master intersection rather than a strip of right-of-way The U-turn movement may also be twice. However, given that the Bloomingdale Avenue corridor and executed via a “hook” turn which stores U-turning vehicles in a turn many of its cross streets are constrained on right-of-way and built out bay to the right of the through lane where they will eventually cross in with developments, MUT intersections may be the most cost-effective front of the through lane to make their maneuver as shown in Figure solution out of these three treatment styles at most locations. 18.

25 Figure 19. Bowtie Intersection Example at Bloomingdale of how vehicles may be routed through a MUT intersection with Avenue/Watson Road roundabout terminals, commonly called a bowtie intersection.

MUT intersections also offer potential safety benefits. They provide additional (possibly signal-protected) mid-block crossing opportunities for pedestrians and also reduce the number of conflict points at the master intersection. They also may act as a traffic calming feature as Westbound left U-turning traffic must slow down to negotiate the U-turn, which also turn is made creates a safer environment for all users. via roundabout U-turn. Signal timing is essential to achieving a successful MUT intersection and an advanced microsimulation program should be used to fully analyze any location under consideration for this type of treatment to verify that vehicle queues are properly controlled and that the Bloomingdale Avenue U-turning movements are experiencing reasonable progression. Note that an additional right-turn bay may be needed at the master intersection, in some cases, if left-turn volumes that are instead rerouted through a right-turn lane at the master intersection are great

Watson Road Northbound left enough to warrant an additional right-turn lane. Quadrant road and turn is made displaced left-turn treatments should also be fully analyzed using via roundabout an advanced microsimulation program for locations where they are U-turn. being considered. MUT intersections should be further explored at all possible signalized intersections along Bloomingdale Avenue as they are anticipated to be a safe, cost-effective solution to the existing congestion.

4.7 Summary of Findings MUT intersections may operate under signalized, unsignalized, or roundabout control, depending on the traffic volumes, geometric Based on the preliminary screening the reversible lane concept constraints, and safety impacts. The MUT intersections should ideally was advanced to more detailed evaluation. Two reversible lane be located approximately 500-800 feet away from the master configurations were developed: intersection. This distance range allows further flexibility in selecting ƒƒ 3/2 configuration that would eliminate the left turns from right-of-way with minimal impacts (i.e., a driveway or parking lot may Bloomingdale Avenue and require MUTs on intersecting be avoided by shifting the U-turn location further north or south on an roadways; and approach to an area with grass only). Figure 19 shows an example 26 Mobility Improvement Option Evaluation ƒƒ 3/1 TWLTL/1 configuration that would reduce the off peak directional traffic to a single lane, but maintain the TWLTL on 5. LITHIA PINECREST ROAD/BRYAN ROAD Bloomingdale Avenue. The Lithia Pinecrest Road/Bryan Road intersection was analyzed under The evaluation revealed that while both options improve travel time its existing configuration and as a roundabout intersection. The analysis or capacity for peak hour directional traffic, each have significant used traffic volumes provided in the FDOT District Seven Districtwide impacts on the network. While there would be travel time savings Traffic Signal Retiming Report for the US 301 and Bloomingdale Avenue for westbound traffic on Bloomingdale Avenue in the AM peak hour Corridors as the basis for future volume development. A 2.0 percent in the 3/2 configuration, the overall networkwide travel times would growth rate, obtained from the Bureau of Economic and Business increase. This configuration would require MUT intersections, or a Research (BEBR), was used to develop design year (2040) traffic similar treatment, to facilitate the prohibited left turn movements. The volumes. Figure 20 shows the roadway network around the analysis loss of the TWLTL would impact the ability of traffic to safely turn onto area. Some of the roundabout configurations that were considered Bloomingdale Avenue from mid-block locations. involved one-way pair approaches, which are discussed in more detail in the following section of this memo. For the 3/1 TWLTL/1 configuration, the analysis shows that the v/c ratio for eastbound traffic on Bloomingdale in the AM peak hour would increase to nearly 60 percent over capacity due to the loss of 5.1 Existing Conditions one travel lane. Dual left turns from cross streets would need to be The Brandon Boulevard (SR 60) Compatibility Study (December 2013) eliminated onto Bloomingdale Avenue and many mid-block locations recommended an evaluation of roundabout and one-way pair option or unsignalized intersections may need to be evaluated for right-in/ at Lithia Pinecrest Road and Bryan Road to address capacity and safety right-out configurations. issues on a constrained segment of SR 60 (Kings Avenue to Bryan In addition to the two reversible lanes configurations that were Road. considered, other improvement options including innovative The Lithia Pinecrest Road/Bryan Road intersection currently operates intersection concept and minor timing and turn bay improvements at at an acceptable level in the existing year and does not show any signalized intersections, were evaluated for implementation. Given the prominent crash pattern that would indicate an existing safety issue, significant access impacts that would be required for implementation with only four crashes (all rear-end crashes) in the six-year span from of a reversible lane configuration, this improvement option may not 2010-2015. Table 6 shows the LOS and intersection delay results. be the most effective or feasible option. Based on the qualitative and quantitative analysis, Bloomingdale Avenue may be a good candidate Table 6. Lithia Pinecrest Road/Bryan Road Existing as a MUT corridor. Intersections could be analyzed on a case by case Configuration Delay and LOS basis for MUTs and other innovative treatments as funding becomes 2016 Delay 2016 2016 Max available. Existing Configuration (s/veh) LOS v/c AM Peak Hour – Overall Intersection 21.0 C 0.79 PM Peak Hour – Overall Intersection 18.5 B 0.75

27 Figure 20. Roundabout and One-Way Pair Study Area OA 5.2 Roundabout Configurations Considered E RUBY CIR K RIDGE V DR

A

K

A EMILY LN

E Six different roundabout layouts were considered at the Lithia Pinecrest

O W V SADIE S A T D Road/Bryan Road intersection. Figures 21 through Figure 26 show the S E SADIE ST

R N E

V O lane geometry for each roundabout option that was considered.

E S

A Y

V R A

N E A

JAMES ST E A

W V

E E

O V P

S

A

V V

O A

N A G

A A

M D

R

R

I N I

D

D O

N

D A

E MORGAN ST K

O

O

O L N 5.3 Traffic Operational Analysis

O

O

C

W

A

T

E S

W

W

N N

E

K

I O

G

A P

D M O SIDRA 6.1 was used as the roundabout analysis software tool. The six

I N

R N N roundabout configurations were analyzed in existing year (2016) and/

W BRANDON BLVD E BRANDON BLVD or design year (2040) for the AM and PM peak hours. The Synchro E T V files provided by Hillsborough County were used for analyzing the

S A

T

N COOK ST E intersection as a signal under its existing configuration. O WILBUR ST

R O

A L M E ROBERTSON ST G IT S R H WESTBROOK AVE A IA 5.3.1 EXISTING YEAR (2016) MASON ST M P IN E All roundabout options besides the one-lane roundabout were C R FIELD DR E CLAYTON ST advanced to the 2040 analysis, as they show acceptable LOS and AK S O T R

E volume-to-capacity (v/c) results in existing year (2016). Based on the D

FAIRMONT DR V

A analysis, a one-lane roundabout would not provide enough capacity D

HOLLY TER O

O due to similar through movement flows on all approaches, leading W

N BRYAN CIR K

A to high circulating flows. The v/c ratios are greater than the desirable O

V S E

D maximum v/c, 0.90, on the northwestbound and southeastbound O V

S BRYAN CIR R

N A

D N

S approaches. Table 7 shows the existing year (2016) analysis results. A

E DEW BLC OOM RD

N Y

R H

O R

B N LARRY CIR I S

L U B R RG D A 5.3.2 DESIGN YEAR (2040) D E R P

S S LARRY CIR RS LOOP LAKE P N A E The Lithia Pinecrest Road/Bryan Road intersection is expected to R E S R

ONS G operate at LOS E or better in the design year (2040) under its existing

L P configuration. The one-lane roundabout options are not expected

R COULTER RD E

T to operate at acceptable levels, showing LOS F in either the AM or

L U

O PM peak hour and v/c greater than 1.00. The two-lane roundabout

C ANTHONY DR options are expected to operate at acceptable levels in both the AM LISA LN and PM peak hours, with the exception of the two-lane roundabout 0 0.25 0.5 Miles ¯ option with a one-way pair with Bryan Road southbound and Lithia ELAINE DR NTS Pinecrest Road northwestbound, which has a v/c greater than 1.00.

28 Mobility Improvement Option Evaluation Figure 21. One-Lane Roundabout Brandon Pilot Study Figure 22. One-Lane Roundabout with Right-Turn BypassBrandon Pilot Study Traffic Analysis Traffic Analysis Lanes

Figure 3.2. One-Lane Roundabout

Figure 3.3. One-Lane Roundabout with Right-Turn Bypass Lanes

29

Page | 35 Page | 34

Figure 23. One-Lane Roundabout with One-way Pair Figure 24. Two-Lane Roundabout (Bryan Road Northbound, Lithia Pinecrest Road Southeastbound)

30 Mobility Improvement Option Evaluation Figure 25. Two-Lane Roundabout with One-Way Pair Figure 26. Two-Lane Roundabout with One-Way Pair (Bryan Road Northbound, Lithia Pinecrest Road (Bryan Road Southbound, Lithia Pinecrest Road Southeastbound) Northwestbound)

31 Table 7. Lithia Pinecrest Road/Bryan Road Roundabout 2016 The roundabout would need to be expanded to two lanes within the Analysis Results vicinity of the intersection for acceptable operations, although the four- lane widening on Lithia Pinecrest Road is planned to end at Lumsden 2016 2016 2016 Advance 2016 PM Road. Table 8 shows the design year (2040) analysis results. Two Layout Description AM PM AM to 2040 Max v/c roundabout options were advanced to the preliminary layout stage. LOS LOS Max v/c Analysis? One-Lane Roundabout C B 1.08 0.96 No 5.4 Roundabout Preliminary Layouts One-Lane Roundabout A A 0.71 0.86 Yes with Right-Turn Bypass The roundabout options were also checked for geometric feasibility Lanes using school buses and fire trucks for the design vehicles as Lithia One-Lane Roundabout A A 0.90 0.72 Yes Pinecrest Road is a truck-restricted corridor. Using these parameters, with One-way two preliminary two-lane roundabout draft layouts were developed, a Pair (Bryan Road two-lane roundabout without a one-way pair (Figure 27), and a two- Northbound, Lithia lane roundabout with a one-way pair, with Bryan Road northbound Pinecrest Road and Lithia Pinecrest Road southeastbound (Figure 28). Challenges with Southeastbound) approach and departure deflection due to skewed intersection angle Two-Lane Roundabout A A 0.64 0.75 Yes led to the split configuration geometry of the two-lane roundabout *Two-Lane Roundabout N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes without a one-way pair. with One-Way These two-lane roundabout options do not appear to be feasible at Pair (Bryan Road this location because the entry and exit segments overlap due to the Northbound, Lithia skewed intersection angle of about 34 degrees. To alleviate this issue, Pinecrest Road the diameter of the roundabout would need to be bigger than the Southeastbound) maximum needed for the design vehicle, at which point it would be *Two-Lane Roundabout N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes over-designed and the right-of-way impacts would be increased. It is with One-Way expected that a benefit-to-cost analysis would not justify the right-of- Pair (Bryan Road way takes required to implement a roundabout at the Lithia Pinecrest Southbound, Lithia Road/Bryan Road intersection. Access impacts to the driveway on the Pinecrest Road south side of this intersection are also anticipated. Northwestbound) Existing Configuration C B 0.79 0.75 Yes (not a roundabout) 5.5 Other Treatment Options Considered *Not analyzed for 2016. The existing configuration is expected to operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS D in the PM peak hour in the design year (2040).

32 Mobility Improvement Option Evaluation Table 8. Lithia Pinecrest Road/Bryan Road Roundabout 2040 Figure 27. Two-Lane Roundabout Draft Layout Analysis Results

2040 2040 Advance to 2040 AM 2040 PM Layout Description AM PM Geometric Max v/c Max v/c LOS LOS Layout? *One-Lane Roundabout - - - - - One-Lane Roundabout E F 1.20 1.65 No with Right-Turn Bypass Lanes One-Lane Roundabout F C 1.39 1.10 No with One-way Pair (Bryan Road Northbound, Lithia Pinecrest Road Southeastbound) Two-Lane Roundabout A A 0.84 0.80 Yes Two-Lane Roundabout A A 0.60 0.57 Yes with One-Way Pair (Bryan Road Northbound, Lithia Pinecrest Road Southeastbound) Two-Lane Roundabout B D 0.78 1.22 No with One-Way Pair (Bryan Road Southbound, Lithia Pinecrest Road Northwestbound) Existing Configuration E D 1.17 1.16 N/A (not a roundabout) *The one-lane roundabout configuration was not advanced to the 2040 analysis as it failed the 2016 analysis

Therefore, the need for improvements at the Lithia Pinecrest Road/ Bryan Road intersection should be carefully monitored. If improvements are determined to be needed, expanding Lithia Pinecrest Road to two

33 Figure 28. Two-Lane Roundabout with One-Way Pair Figure 29. Traditional Merge vs. Zipper-Style Merge (Bryan Road Northbound, Lithia Pinecrest Road Southeastbound) Draft Layout Traditional Merge

Lithia Pinecrest Road

Zipper Merge

lanes in each direction just before Bryan Road and tying back down to one lane in each direction just after may be considered as a viable option. A zipper-style merge on the departures of Lithia Pinecrest Road may be used to intentionally make it vague for which vehicle is to yield, with the goal of better lane utilization on the approaches. Figure 29 shows the difference between a traditional merge from right to left and a zipper-style merge. A Split Tee configuration concept may also be considered as a viable option, as shown in Figure 30. Both of these treatment options have anticipated right-of-way impacts.

Bryan Road

Lithia Pinecrest Road 5.6 Summary of Findings

Bryan Road While the two-lane roundabouts operated acceptably, they showed geometric complications due to the skew angle of the intersection. Since this intersection is currently not showing safety concerns or major operational deficiencies, it is recommended that congestion continue to be monitored before improvements are further considered. The most beneficial improvement options appear to include widening through the intersection with a zipper-style merge or a split tee configuration. 34 Mobility Improvement Option Evaluation Figure 30. Split Tee Intersection Layout 6. LITHIA PINECREST ROAD-BRYAN ROAD ONE-WAY PAIR AT SR 60 In addition to the roundabout analysis at the Lithia Pinecrest Road/ Bryan Road intersection, the study team evaluated an option to convert segments of Lithia Pinecrest Road (northwest leg of the Lithia Pinecrest Road/Bryan Road intersection) and Bryan Road (north leg of the Lithia Pinecrest Road/Bryan Road intersection) to a one-way pair in order to mitigate the existing congestion. The intersections of SR 60/Lithia Pinecrest Road-Pinewood Avenue and SR 60/Bryan Road-Kingsway Road were analyzed under one-way pair configurations using the same volume development methodology as the roundabout analysis. The existing year (2016) AM and PM peak hour volumes are shown on Figure 31. The design year (2040) AM and PM peak hour volumes are shown on Figure 32.

6.1 One-Way Pair Configurations Considered Two one-way pair configurations were considered:

ƒƒ Option 1 includes Bryan Road flowing in the northbound direction and Lithia Pinecrest Road flowing in the southeastbound direction, as shown on Figure 33.

Bryan Road ƒƒ A second one-way pair option was also considered with Bryan Road flowing in the southbound direction and LithiaLithia Pinecrest Pinecrest Road Road flowing in the northwestbound direction, as shown on Figure 34. The SR 60/Lithia Pinecrest Road-Pinewood Avenue and SR 60/Bryan Road-Kingsway Road intersections were analyzed first to determine the best one-way pair configuration. Then the Lithia Pinecrest Road/Bryan Road intersection was analyzed with the preferred one-way pair option under a signalized and roundabout configuration to verify that this intersection operated acceptably through the design year (2040).

35 Figure 31. SR 60 One-Way Pair Traffic Volumes, 2016 Figure 32. SR 60 One-Way Pair Traffic Volumes, 2040

Brandon Pilot Study Brandon Pilot Study Traffic Analysis Traffic Analysis Existing Year (2016) AM Peak Hour Volumes Design Year (2040) AM Peak Hour Volumes

Brandon Pilot Study Figure 4.1. Existing Year (2016) AM Peak Hour Volumes – SR 60 One-Way Pair Study Intersections Traffic Analysis Figure 4.3. Design Year (2040) AM Peak Hour Volumes – SR 60 One-Way Pair Study Intersections Brandon Pilot Study Traffic Analysis Existing Year (2016) PM Peak Hour Volumes Design Year (2040) PM Peak Hour Volumes

Page | 47 Page | 49

Figure 4.2. Existing Year (2016) PM Peak Hour Volumes – SR 60 One-Way Pair Study Intersections Figure 4.4. Design Year (2040) PM Peak Hour Volumes – SR 60 One-Way Pair Study Intersections 36 Mobility Improvement Option Evaluation Page | 50 Page | 48

OA OA E RUBY CIR E K RIDGE RUBY CIR K RIDGE V V DR DR

A A

K K

A EMILY LN A EMILY LN

E E

O O V

W V W A SADIE S A Figure 33. One-Way Pair Option 1 SADIE S Figure 34. One-Way Pair Option 2

T D T D S S E SADIE ST E SADIE ST

R R

N N

E E O

V O V

E E

S S

A Y A Y

V V

R R

A A E

N E N

A A E

JAMES ST E JAMES ST

A A

W W

V V

E E

E E

V

O V O

P P

S S

A A

V V

V V A

O A O

N N

A A G G

A A

A A

D

M D M

R R

R R

I I N N

I I

D D

D D

O O

N N

D D

A A K

E MORGAN ST K E MORGAN ST

O O

O O

O O

L L

N N

O O

O O

C C

W W

A A

T T

E E

S S

W W

W W

N N

N N

E E

K K

I I

O O

G G

A A

P P

D D

M M

O O

I I

N N

R R

N N

N N

W BRANDON BLVD E BRANDON BLVDW BRANDON BLVD E BRANDON BLVD E E Bryan Rd Bryan Rd

T T

V V

S S

A A (one-way (one-way

T T N N COOK ST COOK ST

E northbound) E southbound) O O WILBUR ST WILBUR ST

R R

O O

A L A L

M M

E ROBERTSON ST G IT E ROBERTSON ST G IT S S R H WESTBROOK AVE R H WESTBROOK AVE A IA A IA MASON ST M P MASON ST M P IN IN E E C C R R FIELD DR E FIECLLDAYTDORN ST E CLAYTON ST AK S AK S O T O T

Lithia- R Lithia- R E

D E D V

Pinecrest Rd FAIRMONT DR V Pinecrest Rd FAIRMONT DR

A A D

(one-way D (one-way O H O H

southbound) OLLY TER northbound) OLLY TER

O O

W W K

N BRYAN CIR K N BRYAN CIR

A A

O O S

V V S

E E

D D O O

V V R

S BRYAN CIR R S BRYAN CIR

N N

A A N D D N

S S

A A

E E DEW BLC OOM RD DEW BLC OOM RD

N N

Y Y

R R H H

O O

R R

B N LARRY CIR B I N LARRY CIR I S S

L L B U B U R R RG RG D D D A D E A E R P R P

S S LARRY CIR S RS LOOP S LARRY CIR RS LOOP LAKE P N LAKE P N A E A E R E R E S R S R 37

ONS G ONS G

L L

P P

R

R COULTER RD COULTER RD

E E

T T

L L

U U

O O C C ANTHONY DR ANTHONY DR

LISA LN LISA LN 0 0.25 0.5 0 0.25 0.5 Miles ¯ Miles ¯ ELAINE DR ELAINE DR NTS NTS 6.2 Traffic Operational Analysis Table 9. Existing Year (2016) Analysis Results The SR 60/Lithia Pinecrest Road-Pinewood Avenue and SR 60/Bryan 2016 2016 2016 2016 Road-Kingsway Road intersections were assessed for feasibility in the Description of AM PM 2016 2016 AM Max PM Max existing year (2016). The two one-way pair configurations that were Option Delay Delay AM LOS PM LOS v/c v/c considered were analyzed in existing year (2016) and/or design year (s/veh) (s/veh) (2040) for the AM and PM peak hours. The Synchro files provided by Existing Configuration Hillsborough County were used for the intersection delay and LOS SR 60/Pinewood 59.7 21.1 E C 1.02 0.91 analyses. The cycle length of 190 seconds was maintained to ensure Avenue coordination along SR 60. The red-time formula methodology was SR 60/Kingsway 31.9 24.6 C C 0.85 1.11 used to determine the intersection queue lengths. Road 6.2.1 EXISTING YEAR (2016) One-Way Pair with Lithia Pinecrest Road southeastbound (Option 1) Although Option 1 operates similarly to the existing configuration in SR 60/Pinewood 11.4 18.9 B B 0.82 1.00 the existing year (2016), the rerouted volume leads to higher volume Avenue conflicts at the SR 60/Bryan Road-Kingsway Road intersection due to SR 60/Kingsway 65.1 27.2 E C 1.11 0.91 the high northbound left-turn movement at Bryan Road. This would Road cause Bryan Road to have increased volume from the rerouted One-Way Pair with Lithia Pinecrest Road northwestbound (Option 2) northbound left and northbound through movements from the SR SR 60/Pinewood 27.9 60.6 C E 0.97 1.19 60/Lithia Pinecrest Road-Pinewood Avenue intersection. Also, the Avenue southbound approach on Kingsway Road shows somewhat high SR 60/Kingsway 20.8 32.6 C C 0.76 0.93 volumes, compared to Pinewood Avenue, that lead to a high conflict Road between the northbound left and southbound through movements. Therefore, this one-way pair configuration is not expected to 6.2.2 DESIGN YEAR (2040) improve operations and was not advanced to the design year (2040) operational analysis stage. Since Option 2 operates similarly to the existing configuration in the existing year (2016), an additional analysis was performed for the Option 2 operates similarly to the existing configuration in the existing design year (2040). The design year (2040) analysis shows mixed year (2016), with comparable delay, LOS, and v/c results. Table 9 results with neither option showing a greater overall benefit. Table 10 shows the existing year (2016) delay, LOS and maximum v/c results. shows the design year (2040) delay, LOS, and maximum v/c results. An assessment of the critical volume conflicts shows similar results to the existing configuration as well. Therefore, Option 2 was advanced Although Option 2 did not show a clear improvement benefit, it was to the design year (2040) operational analysis stage. determined to be the more viable of the two one-way pair options, as Option 1 reroutes volumes in a way that leads to higher critical volume conflicts. Therefore, Option 2 was considered in combination with a

38 Mobility Improvement Option Evaluation Table 10. Design Year (2040) Analysis Results to get to the desired location. Making vehicles travel on southbound Bryan Road to turn right onto northwestbound Lithia Pinecrest Road 2016 2016 2016 2016 routes more vehicles onto segments where they would not have AM PM 2016 2016 AM PM Description of Option driven under the existing configuration. It may be inconvenient for Delay Delay AM LOS PM LOS Max Max the vehicles destined for or originating from locations on the one-way (s/veh) (s/veh) v/c v/c pair segments that are under consideration. This also limits access to Existing Configuration side streets that connect to residences and businesses. There is also an SR 60/Pinewood 151.8 125.4 F F 1.57 1.43 increased possibility for wrong-way maneuvers at the Lithia Pinecrest Avenue Road/Bryan Road intersection and SR 60, as drivers become familiar SR 60/Kingsway 90.5 112.8 F F 1.25 2.07 with the new configuration. A B/C analysis should be conducted to Road determine if Option 2 should be advanced to the next stages. One-Way Pair with Lithia Pinecrest Road northwestbound (Option 2) SR 60/Pinewood 119.2 253.5 F F 1.53 1.87 6.4 Other Treatment Options Considered Avenue SR 60/Kingsway 59.5 133.0 E F 1.11 1.43 As with Bloomingdale Avenue, intersection types that involve two- or Road three-phase signal schemes may be considered at the SR 60/Lithia Pinecrest Road-Pinewood Avenue and SR 60/Bryan Road-Kingsway Road intersections, including quad roads, MUTs, and displaced left- signal and with a roundabout at the Lithia Pinecrest Road/Bryan Road turn movements. Also, extending S Montclair Avenue south to connect intersection. The Section 3.3 results showed that a roundabout at the with Lithia Pinecrest Road may improve circulation and relieve the Lithia Pinecrest Road/Bryan Road intersection operates acceptably northbound right-turn movements at Pinewood Avenue and the with Option 1, but not with Option 2, due to the v/c being 1.22. northbound left-turn movements at Bryan Road-Kingsway Road. A roundabout that is over capacity is vulnerable to locking up and there are fewer possibilities for adding new geometry (i.e. turn bays) Alternatively, widening or a reversible lane configuration may be to improve the congestion. A signalized intersection at the Lithia considered along SR 60 as there is a bottleneck from Kings Avenue to Pinecrest Road/Bryan Road intersection shows a v/c less than 1.10 in Bryan Road-Kingsway Road, with lanes reduced from four each way to combination with Option 2. three each way in that segment. Close consideration should be given to the directional access openings if a reversible lanes option is further considered as they would likely need to be converted to a TWLTL. 6.3 Special Considerations for Implementation Other qualitative considerations for converting Lithia Pinecrest Road 6.5 Summary of Findings and Bryan Road to a one-way pair configuration are access, safety, and costs. With regards to access, converting two existing two-way The two-way pair analysis for the SR 60 intersections with Bryan streets into one-way streets will require traffic to circulate more in order Road and Lithia Pinecrest Road revealed that no clear pattern of

39 improvement was identified. A roundabout at the Lithia Pinecrest Road/Bryan Road intersection does not show acceptable operations in 7. MOBILITY SCENARIO TESTING conjunction with the more viable one-way pair option, Option 2 with In addition to the mobility improvement options that were analyzed as Lithia Pinecrest Road in the northwestbound direction and Bryan Road part of this study, a number of other improvements were considered in the southbound direction. Other improvement options may include and evaluated as part of the mobility scenario development and testing implementing innovative intersection concepts by reducing signals to that was conducted as part of this study. This includes the potential two- or three-phase timing schemes, widening SR 60 in the bottleneck addition of a separate transitway for bus rapid transit (BRT) service on area from Kings Avenue to Bryan Road-Kingsway Road, a reversible SR 60 that was discussed in Technical Memo 7: Network Evaluation. lane in the SR 60 bottleneck area, and/or extending S Montclair Avenue south to connect with Lithia Pinecrest Road. The mobility scenario traffic modeling evaluated the performance of a number of improvements. Seven different scenarios were developed to evaluate the potential of different mobility improvement options. In addition to a No Build option that included just the improvements proposed as part of the LRTP, the scenarios include different combinations of improvements including the introduction of a reversible lane on Bloomingdale Avenue, widening of Lumsden Road, Lithia Pinecrest Road, and John Moore Road, addition of a BRT dedicated guideway on SR 60/Oakfield Road, and construction of a new 2-lane east-west roadway between Providence Lakes Road and Brooker Road.

The analysis of each scenario included an evaluation of the anticipated 2040 traffic volumes and roadway capacity for the roadway network in the Brandon Study Area and adjacent areas. The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Model, version 8.1 (TBRPMv8.1) was updated to include the seven scenarios in the AM and PM time of day models to approximate volumes during the AM and PM peak periods. These models represent the expected 2040 traffic volumes based on a variety of factors, such as socioeconomic data and roadway geometry. The output from each of these models was processed and the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio was determined. The v/c ratio value represents the degree of saturation of a roadway; generally, a v/c ratio of 0.90 or less indicates that there is sufficient capacity for the vehicle demand and significant delays and queue lengths are not expected. However, as the v/c ratio approaches 1.00, traffic may become unstable, with higher delays and queue

40 Mobility Improvement Option Evaluation lengths occurring. Once demand surpasses the available capacity of A summary of the analysis results for each scenario is provided in the roadway (v/c ratio greater than 1.00), excessive queuing and delay Table 11. The results of the v/c analysis for each of the seven scenarios is expected. are shown in Figures 36 to 49. The graphics show either the AM or PM peak period v/c ratios for major roadways within and adjacent Seven mobility scenarios were developed and tested: to the study area. The table provides a comparison of v/c ratios for 1. No Build (2040 as is). several major roadways between the No Build scenario and the six improvement scenarios for the AM and the PM peak hour periods. 2. Reconstruct Bloomingdale Avenue with reversible lane (between Lithia Pinecrest Road and US 301), widen Lumsden Road (6 lanes Based on the results of the analysis, each scenario delivers at least between Kings Road and Lithia Pinecrest Road, and add BRT modest improvements in peak period travel over the baseline No dedicated guideway along SR 60. Build (2040) scenario. Based on a system-wide comparison, Scenario 3. Widen Lumsden Road (6 lanes between Kings Road and Lithia 7, which offers the greatest increases in capacity, sees highest Pinecrest Road), widen Lithia Pinecrest Road (4 lanes between improvements in v/c ratios on the network roadways. Scenario 5, which Bloomingdale Avenue and Lumsden Road), and add BRT only provides a new east-west connection through the central portion dedicated guideway along SR 60. of the study area, also offers high levels of improvement on other east- 4. Widen Lithia Pinecrest Road (4 lanes between Bloomingdale to west corridors. However, this scenario does result in an increase along Lumsden) and add BRT dedicated guideway along SR60/Oakfield Gornto Lake Road south of Lumsden Road. Road. Further operational analyses should be conducted on innovative 5. Construct new 2-lane east-west road between Providence Lakes concepts that are further considered using a high-end microsimulation Road and Brooker Road. program, such as VISSIM, for a final analysis to compare the concepts 6. Reconstruct Bloomingdale with reversible lane (between Lithia being considered in order to identify the preferred concept. VISSIM Pinecrest Road and US 301), widen Lumsden Road (6 lanes should be used because of its ability to replicate operations of complex between Kings Road and Lithia Pinecrest Road), widen Lithia traffic patterns, allow signals to be highly customized, and capture Pinecrest Road (4 lanes between Bloomingdale Avenue and specific route travel times. Geometric feasibility should also be carefully Lumsden Road), widen John Moore Road (4 lanes between considered when identifying a preferred innovative intersection Bloomingdale Avenue and SR 60). concept. 7. Reconstruct Bloomingdale with reversible lane (between Lithia Pinecrest Road and US 301), widen Lumsden Road (6 lanes between Kings Road and Lithia Pinecrest Road), widen Lithia Pinecrest Road (4 lanes between Bloomingdale Avenue and Lumsden Road), widen John Moore Road (4 lanes between Bloomingdale Avenue and SR 60), construct new 2-lane road between Providence Lakes Road and Brooker Road.

41 Figure 35. Mobility Scenario Options CSX RR E ADAMO

DR D V

L B

E

V Y

A C N RD N DOVER

D N D

U E R

G

O

L

E

L

E

R VICTORIA ST C

M D E

T

R N V

N CSX RR

A A

I

E ADA A

M C

O A

E

S D R D

R S V T

V N

G L A

N

O

N B

U

E

S S

V

O

G R

Y MILLER N RD

PALM RIVER RD A

A N M

C I N RD N DOVER

N VALRICO RD VALRICO N P

D

D

N K

N

KINGSWAY RD KINGSWAY U

R E N

G N

O

L

E SR 60 BRT

L

E

R VICTORIA ST C

M D E

T

R N V

SR 60 (BRANDON BLVD) N

A

A

I A

C

A

E

S R

S

V T

N

G A

N

O D

N R W ROBERTSON ST

U

S

S R

D

O

G R

N MILLER N RD

G PALM RIVER RD

D

A

N M I

R CSX RR

N VALRICO RD VALRICO N O P

D D K N U OAKFIEL R

O

KINGSWAY RD KINGSWAY

N

B

B

N

W

N R

E E

A

K K

N

A L

D L A BRANDON MAIN ST SR 60 (BRANDON BLVD) F O S N S W

T TO D

N DR PAULS O R R W ROBERTSON ST

W R D C D

N E G C R N KWY D R E TE BRANDON P CSX RR N T O D D U L R E OAKFIE S PARSONS AVE

O

B

R B W

N B R

L E E

V A K

K D

N

A L

D L A BRANDON MAIN ST Lumsden Rd F O S N S W T TO

O N DR PAULS CAUSEWAY BLVD W R W LUMSDEN RD E LUMSDEN RD D C Widening N R E C E N BRANDON PKWY

ENT T E V E S PARSONS AVE

R A B L L IT D

V H U D I A O

P L C

I RD MILLER S

N RD VALRICO S E RD S DOVER

C T N

R I

CAUSEWAY BLVD E E LUMSDENA RD

W LUMSDEN RD S RD MULRENNAN S T S

R R S E D D

75 V K DURANT RD A

R §

¨¦ L D

A IT U

P H I S A O T P L U

N C

I RD MILLER S

John Moore N RD VALRICO S

S ES E RD S DOVER CR C P LVD E ROVIDENCE LAKES B T

H C N I R I G

E A

S RD MULRENNAN S MARTIN RD MARTIN H D T S W R R Rd Widening R S A E D K D

Y A 75 K L

3 DURANT RD R O 0 ¨¦§ T DURANT RD

1 A BROOKER RD Lithia N

P LVD R E B S O G T ID U G D N R E

E R S E E R S S V C C C PROVIDENCE LAKES BLVD

A

S H N P D Pinecrest Rd

E L

R S I R G D I O A V V G H ID RD MARTIN O E O D N N W R I

N P R C H

E K A E A K S

Y Y A S Widening R L L D RD BRUCKEN

JOHN MOORE RDJOHN

R 3 O UN BLV L

0 B 1 T E BROOKER RD DURANT RD N LVD B VALHALLA POND DR R E B O G GUILES RD S FALKENBURG RD FALKENBURG S ID

G D

R E

E R S V

C LITTLE RD

A

S P N P D

R E L

R S O D R

I O A G V VID G R O E O N N R I

E N P C H S PEARSONRD E K

A S S

Y

B S

R L L D RD BRUCKEN

JOHN MOORE RDJOHN

R V UN BLVBrooker Rd L

D RD PROVIDENCE

B

E M

B A VALHALLA POND DR G GUILES RD N RD FALKENBURG S O L W BLOOMINGDALEExtension AVE E BLOOMINGDALE AVE IA P LITTLE RD P R A O

R G R K E

S PEARSONRD B S L B AVE

V P LV RO D H D T RD PROVIDENCE M IN

A RD DUNCAN W G ND N GRA O L W BLOOMINGDALE AVE E BLOOMINGDALE AVE IA P A

R

K B

L AVE

V P RO D TH IN

DUNCAN RD DUNCAN W GRAND Bloomingdale Ave Reversible Lane Brandon Study Area Brandon Study Area Water Brandon Corridors & Mixed Use Centers Pilot Project

0 0.5 1 Brandon Study Area Brandon Study Area Miles ¯ Water Brandon Corridors & Mixed Use Centers Pilot Project 42 Mobility Improvement Option Evaluation 0 0.5 1 Miles ¯ Table 11. Mobility Scenario Summary – Major Roadways Volume-to-Capacity Ratio Comparison (AM and PM Peak)

Scenarios 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No Build Bloomingdale, Lumsden, Lithia Pinecrest Brooker Bloomingdale, Bloomingdale, Lumsden & Lithia Pinecrest & SR 60 BRT Extension Lumsden, Lithia Lumsden, Lithia SR 60 BRT & SR 60 BRT Pinecrest, John Pinecrest, John Area Roadway Name Moore Moore, Brooker AM PEAK PERIOD Study Bloomingdale Ave (WB) Majority >1.0 Majority >1.0 Majority >1.0. Majority >1.0 Majority >0.9 Majority >0.9 Majority >0.9 Area Slight decrease between Bells Shoals and Parsons Brooker Rd Extension N/A N/A N/A N/A Majority >1.3 N/A Majority >1.1 (WB) Lumsden Rd (WB) Majority >1.5 Majority Majority Majority >1.5 Majority Majority Majority >1.3. Slight >1.3. Slight >1.3. Slight >1.3. Slight >1.3. Slight improvement improvement improvement improvement improvement between Lithia between Lithia between Lithia between Lithia between Lithia Pinecrest and Pinecrest and Pinecrest and Pinecrest and Pinecrest and Kings Kings but Kings Kings Kings decrease between Kings and Brandon Parkway SR 60 (WB) Majority >1.3 Majority Majority > 1.3 Majority >1.3 Majority Majority Majority >1.1. Slight >1.1. Slight >1.1. Slight >1.1. Slight improvement improvement improvement improvement between Kings between Kings between Kings between Kings and Valrico and Valrico and Valrico and Valrico Lithia Pinecrest Rd (NB) Majority >1.3 Majority Majority Majority Majority Majority Majority >1.1. Slight >1.1. Slight >1.1. Slight >1.1. Slight >1.1. Slight >1.0. Slight improvement improvement improvement improvement improvement improvement between Lumsden between Brooker between Brooker between Brooker between Brooker between and SR 60 and SR 60 and Lumsden and SR 60 and SR 60 Bloomingdale and SR 60

43 Scenarios 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No Build Bloomingdale, Lumsden, Lithia Pinecrest Brooker Bloomingdale, Bloomingdale, Lumsden & Lithia Pinecrest & SR 60 BRT Extension Lumsden, Lithia Lumsden, Lithia SR 60 BRT & SR 60 BRT Pinecrest, John Pinecrest, John Area Roadway Name Moore Moore, Brooker Kings Ave (NB) Majority >1.1 Majority >1.0 Majority >1.0 Majority >1.1 Majority Majority >1.0 Majority >0.9 >1.0. Slight improvement of segment between Bloomingdale Ave and Brooker Rd extension. Providence Rd (NB) Majority >1.3 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Gornto Lake Rd (NB) Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.5 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Adjacent Lithia Pinecrest Rd (NB) Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Area Bell Shoals Rd (NB) Majority >1.5 Majority >1.5 Majority Majority Majority Majority >1.5 Majority >1.5 >1.3. Slight >1.3. Slight >1.3. Slight improvement improvement on improvement between segment between between Glenhaven and Glenhaven and Glenhaven and Bloomingdale Bloomingdale Greenhollow US 301 (NB) Majority >1.5 Majority >1.5 Majority >1.5. Majority >1.5 Majority >1.5 Majority >1.5 Majority >1.5 I-75 (NB) Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1. Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 PM Peak Period Study Bloomingdale Ave (EB) Majority >1.0 Majority Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >0.9 Majority >0.9 Majority >0.9 Area >0.9. Slight improvement between Kings and Cade Brooker Rd Extension N/A N/A N/A N/A Majority >1.1 N/A Majority >1.1 (EB)

44 Mobility Improvement Option Evaluation Scenarios 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No Build Bloomingdale, Lumsden, Lithia Pinecrest Brooker Bloomingdale, Bloomingdale, Lumsden & Lithia Pinecrest & SR 60 BRT Extension Lumsden, Lithia Lumsden, Lithia SR 60 BRT & SR 60 BRT Pinecrest, John Pinecrest, John Area Roadway Name Moore Moore, Brooker Lumsden Rd (EB) Majority >1.1 Majority Majority >1.3 Majority >1.5 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 >1.1. Slight improvement between Kings and Lithia Pinecrest SR 60 (EB) Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Lithia Pinecrest Rd (SB) Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.0 Majority Majority Majority >1.0. Slight >1.0. Slight >1.0. Slight improvement improvement improvement between Lumsden between between and Brooker Lumsden and SR 60 and Bloomingdale Bloomingdale Kings Ave (SB) Majority >1.0 Majority >0.9 Majority >0.9 Majority >0.9 Majority >1.0 Majority >0.9 Majority >0.9 Study Providence Rd (SB) Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >0.9 Area Gornto Lake Rd (SB) Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Adjacent Lithia Pinecrest Rd (SB) Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Area Bell Shoals Rd (SB) Majority >1.3 Majority >1.3 Majority >1.3 Majority Majority >1.3 Majority >1.3 Majority >1.3 >1.1. Slight improvement between Bloomingdale and Glenhaven US 301 (SB) Majority >1.3 Majority >1.3 Majority >1.3 Majority >1.3 Majority >1.3 Majority >1.3 Majority >1.3 I-75 (SB) Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1 Majority >1.1

45    AM_VCLOSE<.9 Figure 36. Scenario 1 (No Build: 2040 LRTP) - 2040 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (AM Peak Period) AM_VCLOSE>=.9&AM_VCLOSE<=1       AM_VCLOSE>1&AM_VCLOSE<=1.1   AM_VCLOSE>1.1&AM_VCLOSE<=1.3 Volume< Capacity (V/C) Roadway Volume     AM_VCLOSE>1.3&AM_VCLOSE<=1.5  V/C <0.9  AM_VCLOSE>1.5  V/C >0.9 to <1.0     FACL_TYPE=51 V/C >1.0 to <1.1 Lower Higher  V/C >1.1 to <1.3   V/C >1.3 to <1.5    V/C >1.5                                           

              

           

     

          

 

    N    46 Mobility Improvement Option Evaluation      PM_VCLOSE<.9 Figure 37. Scenario 1 (No Build: 2040 LRTP) - 2040 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (PM Peak Period) PM_VCLOSE>=.9&PM_VCLOSE<=1       PM_VCLOSE>1&PM_VCLOSE<=1.1   PM_VCLOSE>1.1&PM_VCLOSE<=1.3 Volume< Capacity (V/C) Roadway Volume     PM_VCLOSE>1.3&PM_VCLOSE<=1.5  V/C <0.9  PM_VCLOSE>1.5  V/C >0.9 to <1.0     FACL_TYPE=51 V/C >1.0 to <1.1 Lower Higher  V/C >1.1 to <1.3   V/C >1.3 to <1.5    V/C >1.5                                           

              

           

     

          

 

    N     47     AM_VCLOSE<.9 Figure 38. Scenario 2 (Bloomingdale Reversible, Widen Lumsden Road, SR 60 BRT) - 2040 Volume-to-CapacityAM_VCLOSE>=.9&AM_VCLOSE<=1 Ratio (AM     Peak Period)   AM_VCLOSE>1&AM_VCLOSE<=1.1   AM_VCLOSE>1.1&AM_VCLOSE<=1.3 Volume< Capacity (V/C) Roadway Volume    AM_VCLOSE>1.3&AM_VCLOSE<=1.5  V/CAM_VCLOSE>1.5 <0.9 V/C >0.9 to <1.0   FACL_TYPE=51    V/C >1.0 to <1.1  Lower Higher  V/C >1.1 to <1.3 V/C >1.3 to <1.5    V/C >1.5                                         

              

      

   

     

         

 

    N    48 Mobility Improvement Option Evaluation      PM_VCLOSE<.9 Figure 39. Scenario 2 (Bloomingdale Reversible, Widen Lumsden Road, SR 60 BRT) - 2040 Volume-to-CapacityPM_VCLOSE>=.9&PM_VCLOSE<=1 Ratio (PM     Peak Period)   PM_VCLOSE>1&PM_VCLOSE<=1.1   PM_VCLOSE>1.1&PM_VCLOSE<=1.3 Volume< Capacity (V/C) Roadway Volume    PM_VCLOSE>1.3&PM_VCLOSE<=1.5  V/CPM_VCLOSE>1.5 <0.9 V/C >0.9 to <1.0   FACL_TYPE=51    V/C >1.0 to <1.1  Lower Higher  V/C >1.1 to <1.3 V/C >1.3 to <1.5    V/C >1.5                                         

              

      

   

     

         

 

    N     49     AM_VCLOSE<.9 Figure 40. Scenario 3 (Widen Lumsden Road and Lithia Pinecrest Road and SR 60 BRT) - 2040 Volume-to-CapacityAM_VCLOSE>=.9&AM_VCLOSE<=1 Ratio (AM     Peak Period)   AM_VCLOSE>1&AM_VCLOSE<=1.1   AM_VCLOSE>1.1&AM_VCLOSE<=1.3 Volume< Capacity (V/C) Roadway Volume     AM_VCLOSE>1.3&AM_VCLOSE<=1.5  V/CAM_VCLOSE>1.5 <0.9   V/C >0.9 to <1.0     FACL_TYPE=51 V/C >1.0 to <1.1 Lower Higher  V/C >1.1 to <1.3   V/C >1.3 to <1.5    V/C >1.5                                           

              

           

     

          

 

    N    50 Mobility Improvement Option Evaluation      PM_VCLOSE<.9 Figure 41. Scenario 3 (Widen Lumsden Road and Lithia Pinecrest Road and SR 60 BRT) - 2040 Volume-to-CapacityPM_VCLOSE>=.9&PM_VCLOSE<=1 Ratio (PM     Peak Period)   PM_VCLOSE>1&PM_VCLOSE<=1.1   PM_VCLOSE>1.1&PM_VCLOSE<=1.3 Volume< Capacity (V/C) Roadway Volume     PM_VCLOSE>1.3&PM_VCLOSE<=1.5  V/CPM_VCLOSE>1.5 <0.9   V/C >0.9 to <1.0     FACL_TYPE=51 V/C >1.0 to <1.1 Lower Higher  V/C >1.1 to <1.3   V/C >1.3 to <1.5    V/C >1.5                                           

              

           

     

          

 

    N     51     AM_VCLOSE<.9 Figure 42. Scenario 4 (Widen Lithia Pinecrest and SR 60 BRT) - 2040 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (AM Peak Period)    AM_VCLOSE>=.9&AM_VCLOSE<=1    AM_VCLOSE>1&AM_VCLOSE<=1.1   AM_VCLOSE>1.1&AM_VCLOSE<=1.3     Volume< CapacityAM_VCLOSE>1.3&AM_VCLOSE<=1.5 (V/C) Roadway Volume  V/C <0.9  AM_VCLOSE>1.5  V/C >0.9 to <1.0     FACL_TYPE=51  V/C >1.0 to <1.1 Lower Higher  V/C >1.1 to <1.3    V/C >1.3 to <1.5  V/C >1.5                                           

              

           

     

          

 

    N     52 Mobility Improvement Option Evaluation      PM_VCLOSE<.9 Figure 43. Scenario 4 (Widen Lithia Pinecrest and SR 60 BRT) - 2040 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (PM Peak Period)    PM_VCLOSE>=.9&PM_VCLOSE<=1    PM_VCLOSE>1&PM_VCLOSE<=1.1   PM_VCLOSE>1.1&PM_VCLOSE<=1.3     Volume< CapacityPM_VCLOSE>1.3&PM_VCLOSE<=1.5 (V/C) Roadway Volume  V/C <0.9  PM_VCLOSE>1.5  V/C >0.9 to <1.0     FACL_TYPE=51  V/C >1.0 to <1.1 Lower Higher  V/C >1.1 to <1.3    V/C >1.3 to <1.5  V/C >1.5                                           

              

           

     

          

 

    N      53     AM_VCLOSE<.9   Figure 44. Scenario 5 (New 2-lane Road) - 2040 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (AM Peak Period) AM_VCLOSE>=.9&AM_VCLOSE<=1    AM_VCLOSE>1&AM_VCLOSE<=1.1   AM_VCLOSE>1.1&AM_VCLOSE<=1.3     Volume< CapacityAM_VCLOSE>1.3&AM_VCLOSE<=1.5 (V/C) Roadway Volume  V/C <0.9  AM_VCLOSE>1.5  V/C >0.9 to <1.0     FACL_TYPE=51  V/C >1.0 to <1.1 Lower Higher  V/C >1.1 to <1.3    V/C >1.3 to <1.5  V/C >1.5                                           

              

           

     

          

 

    N     54 Mobility Improvement Option Evaluation      PM_VCLOSE<.9   Figure 45. Scenario 5 (New 2-lane Road) - 2040 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (PM Peak Period) PM_VCLOSE>=.9&PM_VCLOSE<=1    PM_VCLOSE>1&PM_VCLOSE<=1.1   PM_VCLOSE>1.1&PM_VCLOSE<=1.3     Volume< CapacityPM_VCLOSE>1.3&PM_VCLOSE<=1.5 (V/C) Roadway Volume  V/C <0.9  PM_VCLOSE>1.5  V/C >0.9 to <1.0     FACL_TYPE=51  V/C >1.0 to <1.1 Lower Higher  V/C >1.1 to <1.3    V/C >1.3 to <1.5  V/C >1.5                                           

              

           

     

          

 

    N      55     AM_VCLOSE<.9 Figure 46. Scenario 6 (Bloomingdale Reversible, Widen Lumsden Road, Lithia Pinecrest Road & JohnAM_VCLOSE>=.9&AM_VCLOSE<=1 Moore Road, and SR 60       AM_VCLOSE>1&AM_VCLOSE<=1.1  BRT) - 2040 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (AM Peak Period)  AM_VCLOSE>1.1&AM_VCLOSE<=1.3     Volume< CapacityAM_VCLOSE>1.3&AM_VCLOSE<=1.5 (V/C) Roadway Volume  V/C <0.9  AM_VCLOSE>1.5  V/C >0.9 to <1.0    FACL_TYPE=51  V/C >1.0 to <1.1  Lower Higher  V/C >1.1 to <1.3    V/C >1.3 to <1.5  V/C >1.5                                           

              

           

     

          

 

    N     56 Mobility Improvement Option Evaluation      PM_VCLOSE<.9 Figure 47. Scenario 6 (Bloomingdale Reversible, Widen Lumsden Road, Lithia Pinecrest Road & JohnPM_VCLOSE>=.9&PM_VCLOSE<=1 Moore Road, and SR 60       PM_VCLOSE>1&PM_VCLOSE<=1.1  BRT) - 2040 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (PM Peak Period)  PM_VCLOSE>1.1&PM_VCLOSE<=1.3     Volume< CapacityPM_VCLOSE>1.3&PM_VCLOSE<=1.5 (V/C) Roadway Volume  V/C <0.9  PM_VCLOSE>1.5  V/C >0.9 to <1.0    FACL_TYPE=51  V/C >1.0 to <1.1  Lower Higher  V/C >1.1 to <1.3    V/C >1.3 to <1.5  V/C >1.5                                           

              

           

     

          

 

    N      57     AM_VCLOSE<.9 Figure 48. Scenario 7 (Bloomingdale Reversible, Widen Lumsden Road, Lithia Pinecrest Road & JohnAM_VCLOSE>=.9&AM_VCLOSE<=1 Moore Road, and SR 60     BRT) - 2040 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (AM Peak Period)  AM_VCLOSE>1&AM_VCLOSE<=1.1   AM_VCLOSE>1.1&AM_VCLOSE<=1.3 Volume< Capacity (V/C)     AM_VCLOSE>1.3&AM_VCLOSE<=1.5Roadway Volume  V/CAM_VCLOSE>1.5 <0.9  V/C >0.9 to <1.0   FACL_TYPE=51    V/C >1.0 to <1.1  Lower Higher  V/C >1.1 to <1.3  V/C >1.3 to <1.5    V/C >1.5                                           

              

           

     

          

 

    N    58 Mobility Improvement Option Evaluation      PM_VCLOSE<.9 Figure 49. Scenario 7 (Bloomingdale Reversible, Widen Lumsden Road, Lithia Pinecrest Road & JohnPM_VCLOSE>=.9&PM_VCLOSE<=1 Moore Road, and SR 60     BRT) - 2040 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (AM Peak Period)  PM_VCLOSE>1&PM_VCLOSE<=1.1   PM_VCLOSE>1.1&PM_VCLOSE<=1.3 Volume< Capacity (V/C) Roadway Volume     PM_VCLOSE>1.3&PM_VCLOSE<=1.5  V/CPM_VCLOSE>1.5 <0.9  V/C >0.9 to <1.0   FACL_TYPE=51    V/C >1.0 to <1.1  Lower Higher  V/C >1.1 to <1.3  V/C >1.3 to <1.5    V/C >1.5                                           

              

           

     

          

 

    N     59  8. SOURCES ƒƒ Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners, Community Transportation Plan planned project list (April 20, 2016 Agenda Item): http://agenda.hillsboroughcounty.org/cache/00003/686/C-1.PDF ƒƒ Hillsborough County MPO, Imagine 2040: Hillsborough Long Range Transportation Plan (December 2015): http://www.planhillsborough. org/2040-lrtp/ ƒƒ Hillsborough MPO, Brandon Boulevard (SR 60) Compatibility Study (December 2013): http://www.planhillsborough.org/wp-content/ uploads/2013/08/Brandon-Boulevard_LAST_FINAL-Report_121313.pdf ƒƒ Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 340: Convertible Roadways and Lanes (2004): http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/155439.aspx ƒƒ Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal. Planning and Operational Practices for Reversible Roadways. Wolshon, Brian and Lambert II, Laurence (August 2006): http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.417.7417&rep=rep1&type=pdf ƒƒ A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Fourth Edition. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (2001): https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/geometric_design_highways_and_streets_aashto.pdf ƒƒ Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Volume 49, Bulletin 174, Projections of Florida Population by County, 2020–2045, with Estimates for 2015 (January 2016) ƒƒ FDOT Quality/Level of Service (Q/LOS) Handbook (2013) ƒƒ FDOT District Seven Districtwide Traffic Signal Retiming Report for the US 301 and Bloomingdale Avenue Corridors (April 2016) ƒƒ Trafficware Ltd. Synchro plus SimTraffic. Version 8.0. ƒƒ SIDRA Solutions. SIDRA Intersection. Version 6.1. 9. ATTACHMENTS ƒƒ Attachment 1 - Lumsden Road Right-of-Way Estimate, Lumsden Road Environmental Evaluation, & Lumsden Road Preliminary Construction Costs

60 Mobility Improvement Option Evaluation